May 2019 Understanding the assumptions and impacts of the Victorian Public Housing Renewal Program Final report of a research project with Cities of Moreland, Darebin and Yarra Dr David Kelly Professor Libby Porter Contact: [email protected] 03 9925 3585 The authors acknowledge that this report was undertaken on the unceded lands of the Woiwurrung and Boonwurrung speaking peoples of the Kulin Nation. We respectfully acknowledge Ancestors and Elders, past and present. Understanding the assumptions and impacts of the Victorian Public Housing Renewal Program Purpose Final report of a research project with Cities of Moreland, Darebin and Yarra Disclaimer: The findings, views and claims expressed in this report are those of the authors. They do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of the Cities of Moreland, Darebin or Yarra. Authors Dr David Kelly Professor Libby Porter Contact: [email protected], 03 9925 3585 May 2019 The authors acknowledge that this report was undertaken on the unceded lands of the Woiwurrung and Boonwurrung speaking peoples of the Kulin Nation. We respectfully acknowledge Ancestors and Elders, past and present. Contents Summary ................................................................................................................................. 3 Introduction .............................................................................................................................. 5 Part One: The PHRP in context ............................................................................................... 7 1. Overview of the PHRP and the key concerns .............................................................. 7 The Parliamentary Inquiry ................................................................................................ 8 PHRP and the Real estate model .................................................................................. 12 First tranche of redevelopment under PHRP ................................................................. 14 2. Public and community housing in Victoria ................................................................. 16 Background .................................................................................................................... 16 Overview of the community housing sector in Victoria .................................................. 17 Current debates on social housing in Victoria ................................................................ 18 3. Policy context ............................................................................................................. 22 National level ................................................................................................................. 22 Local level ...................................................................................................................... 23 Victorian Housing Policy: ‘Homes for Victorians’ ........................................................... 23 Part Two: Existing evidence and case studies of the impact of renewal ............................... 27 1. International evidence base on impacts of displacement .......................................... 27 Right to return ................................................................................................................ 30 2. Case studies of public housing renewal and its impacts ............................................ 30 Kensington Estate .......................................................................................................... 30 Carlton Estate ................................................................................................................ 34 Other redevelopment projects ........................................................................................ 37 3. Analysis of the PHRP model ...................................................................................... 43 Part Three: Social Mix Evidence Review ............................................................................... 45 1. Introduction ................................................................................................................ 45 Defining the term ............................................................................................................ 45 2. Conceptual origins ..................................................................................................... 46 3. Post-war social mix .................................................................................................... 48 Post-war social mix in Australia ..................................................................................... 48 4. International approaches to social mix ....................................................................... 52 5. Analysis of Social Mix as a policy objective in the PHRP .......................................... 54 References ............................................................................................................................ 58 Appendix A: Alternative approaches for the Victorian public housing renewal program ....... 63 Appendix B: Inquiry into the Public Housing Renewal Program terms of reference .............. 65 2 Executive Summary The Victorian Government’s Public Housing Renewal Program (PHRP) aims to redevelop 11 inner suburban public housing estates in Melbourne. The redevelopment entails the relocation of residents, the demolition of the existing buildings and the redevelopment of each site by a private developer in partnership with a community housing provider. This raises significant concerns about the effectiveness of the policy in delivering housing in a time of severe housing crisis, the impact of displacement on residents and communities, and the assumptions underpinning the PHRP and the real estate model it deploys. This research project aimed to evaluate the claims of the PHRP and its underlying model in order to establish an accurate evidence base and assess the anticipated impact of the model on public housing residents in Melbourne. To do so, the research used a desk-top review of relevant Australian and international literature, previous evaluations and studies on similar estates, and a policy analysis. This report of findings provides a critical evaluation of the policy claims and an assessment of the likely impact of the PHRP on public housing residents. It also provides an overview about how the policy and program inter-relates with wider trends and other policy frameworks to provide a more nuanced understanding of how the PHRP and its impacts should be understood in the current context Headline findings The social mix ratio 70:30 private to social housing is not based in any evidence about social mix and is derived purely from a real estate value calculation for what will turn a profit for the private developer in the partnership. The research therefore concludes that the private profit motive is the primary driving policy directive of social mix as advanced in the PHRP The international research on social mix clearly demonstrates the approach does not work in either theory or practice. When promoted through redevelopment, social mix policies result in the permanent loss of public land, low yields of low-income housing; displacement and intensified segregation and exclusion; loss of public housing; and the homogenisation of populations at the neighbourhood scale. The PHRP will in fact reduce social mix in the target neighbourhoods. The PHRP will result in an increased number of social housing units but a decrease in the number of bedrooms available. Based on the first tranche of redevelopment announced in April 2019, the redevelopment will reduce public housing to 0 on these sites, as the resulting units will all be either owned and / or managed by a community housing provider. The analysis demonstrates clear to roll this approach across each of the estates targeted under the PHRP. The PHRP has caused significant direct displacement of residents. The evidence demonstrates that relatively few residents will return, and that it is both inaccurate and wrong to frame this as resident ‘choice’. The relocation process itself intensifies the transfer of public money to private hands with the widespread use of privately rented properties to accommodate relocated public housing tenants. The international evidence demonstrates that displacement has severe impacts on individuals, households and communities including: poor mental and physical health outcomes; the breakdown of long-standing community networks; economic impacts including loss of livelihoods, productivity loss, and intensification of poverty; loss of access to vital services and networks; further uplift in land values causing new rounds of gentrification and segregation. 3 Public housing stock, management and provision in Victoria has come under sustained criticism in numerous inquiries and reports since 2008. The Productivity Commission, Auditor General and Victorian Parliament have each documented concern about the quality and quantity of public housing, the systems in place to manage built assets and tenancies, and the appropriateness of policy frameworks to provide low-income housing in Victoria. The Victorian Government is yet to sufficiently respond to these concerns including the most recent Parliamentary Inquiry to which the government has to date still not responded. The PHRP is advanced based on a discourse that stigmatises estates and tenants as a justification