Labor must learn from Greens on public housing policy

As a public housing resident, in Victoria we’ve lost two of the best advocates in Adam Bandt and Samantha Ratnam, who were both narrowly defeated at the federal election.

The electorate of Melbourne contains large swaths of public housing, including high-rise towers, which are home to extensive multicultural communities. Bandt, in his 15 years as the member for Melbourne, had a long record of assisting countless individuals and families with an array of complex social problems. He has been an approachable and responsive politician.

Ratnam, former leader of the Victorian Greens, is one of the few politicians who called out Labor’s plans to demolish Melbourne’s 44 tower blocks as privatisation. This is a word Labor desperately tries to distance itself from, but which is nevertheless true. It is largely due to Ratnam’s persistent efforts in state parliament that we now have a Legislative Council inquiry into the redevelopment of the first tranche of high-rise estates in North Melbourne and Flemington.

It is unfair to label the Greens in the Senate last year as “obstructionist” for reviewing and seeking amendments to important bills. The Greens’ proposal that Labor oversee a government-appointed property developer was sound common sense. If adopted, it would have gone a long way to making headway and actually getting people housed quickly, responsibly and economically.

Nationwide, over the past 15 years, we have lost tens of thousands of public housing properties due to the pernicious practice of “stock transfers” — handing over titles and/or management of public housing to private community or social housing businesses. This has been a bipartisan policy.

The decision to demolish and “redevelop” the 44 tower blocks should be seen in this context. It will take us deeper down the path of privatisation and will result in a huge and irreplaceable loss of public housing and public land.

The overweening hubris shown by Daniel Andrews in dropping a bombshell announcement of such magnitude just days before resigning from politics has been criticised by his colleagues. Jacinta Allan should heed the schism within her own party. Blindly following her predecessor’s footsteps, rather than encouraging discussion and debate, cannot be good policy.

Many Labor ministers are disturbed by these plans; what it means for the future of public housing in Victoria, and whether it is really necessary given recent upgrades costing millions. This is in line with what many public tenants are saying: that there is nothing wrong with where they live. Their estates are not “crumbling”, as Daniel Andrews repeatedly claimed as justification for tearing them down.

When the sites have been bulldozed, they will no doubt be given to housing associations in exchange for a paltry amount (10%, according to an ordinance sent to Yarra Council) of “affordable housing”. On its website, Homes Victoria has defined “affordable housing” in metropolitan Melbourne as “at least 10% below the area’s median market rent”. Elsewhere, it says that “affordable housing” will “never be more than market rent”. If the rent advertised is more than 30% of your income, you are disqualified from applying for it.

How can this possibly be considered “affordable housing” for people on low incomes?

The Allan government needs to rethink its position on public housing — and quickly — in order to avoid a deepening humanitarian crisis.

The ideology that the market will solve the housing crisis and homelessness is misguided. Extensive amounts of public money gifted to the social housing industry at the federal and state levels would be far better spent on strengthening the public housing sector.

Public housing is an essential public asset. It should be managed wisely by the government on behalf of the Victorian people, now and for the future.

Plans that will lead to the destruction and privatisation of public housing and the displacement of communities from their homes are unconscionable and indefensible, and should be scrapped.