Report finds Victoria needs 80,000 new homes in next decade to start fixing social housing crisis
Victoria must build 80,000 new social housing homes over the next decade just to catch up to the national average, according to new data released by housing advocates.
The Victorian Housing Peaks Alliance today released the Growing Social Housing report, modelling the state's social housing demand and calling on the government to act.
The report found Victoria needs an extra 377,000 social housing dwellings by 2051 to meet the expected total demand for social housing — the term used to describe both public and community housing.
The need for 80,000 new homes in the next decade accounts for less than a quarter of that figure, but advocates say it's what's needed to get the state on track.
Ahead of next week's state budget, the housing alliance is calling on the government to set a target to build 7,990 new social housing dwellings every year for the next 10 years, and to establish a long-term strategy to achieve that target.
Victorian Council of Social Service (VCOSS) CEO Juanita Pope described social housing as "essential infrastructure".
"It's like hospitals, schools, roads and emergency services, so it's time to start planning for it in the same way," Ms Pope said.
"Strong, sustained investment in growing public housing and community housing should be the number one infrastructure priority for this state. It's the key to solving our housing crisis and other big societal challenges."
Victorian Public Tenants Association (VPTA) CEO Katelyn Butterss said every housing issue would worsen without a strong social housing system.
"Every Victorian deserves the dignity of having a place to call home and for some, public housing is the only option to achieve this basic human right long term," Ms Butterss said."However, our public housing system has not grown meaningfully in decades meaning many are left sitting on waiting lists.
"Social housing, and public housing especially, are key to delivering holistic and affordable housing for everyone."
Council to Homeless Persons CEO Deborah Di Natale said more Victorians would face homelessness without action being taken to improve social housing stock.
"Every night, tens of thousands of Victorians are forced to sleep in cars, on the streets and in other unsafe conditions," Ms Di Natale said. "The scale of the dire housing shortage demands bold, sustained action.
"The Victorian government must urgently commit to a social housing building blitz to prevent this crisis erupting into a human catastrophe."
The Growing Social Housing report notes Victoria has the lowest proportion of social housing in Australia, despite the state government's Big Housing Build project aiming to boost housing stock.
While the government has housing targets for the private market, there are no strictly defined social housing targets.
"In Victoria, the current proportion of social housing is 3.1 per cent. After the Big Housing Build, it will be about 3.5 per cent — still well under the national average of 4.5 per cent (which itself isn't enough to meet demand)," the report notes.
"In order to catch up to the national average of 4.5 per cent social housing stock, Victoria needs to build 7,990 new social housing dwellings a year for the next 10 years."
Without building 7,990 new social dwellings each year for the next decade, Victoria's proportion of social housing would drop to about 2 per cent by 2051, the report forecasts.
The report also notes its target is "modest", with modelling showing the state would need to build 10,700 social housing dwellings a year for the next decade to meet "expressed demand" for social housing — enough to house those on the social housing waitlist as well as those currently receiving social housing assistance.
To meet the total demand for social housing — enough for all Victorians who need assistance, including those who haven't formally requested it — the state would need to build 27,900 social dwellings a year.
The report comes as the state's social housing waiting list continues to climb, jumping 8.4 per cent in 2024.
Latest Homes Victoria data shows 55,024 applicants were on the waiting list for social housing in the December 2024 quarter, compared to 50,732 the previous year.
The Victorian Housing Peaks Alliance includes VCOSS, Community Housing Industry Association Victoria, VPTA, the Council to Homeless Persons, Safe and Equal, Aboriginal Housing Victoria, Tenants Victoria and Justice Connect.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
ABC News
an hour ago
- ABC News
Australia is having a 'democracy bounce'. Anthony Albanese could give Donald Trump some lessons
As the Australian prime minister prepares to meet with the US president for their first face-to-face meeting, only one of them is leading a country where democracy is thriving and the public isn't bitterly divided. American democracy is being eroded by a president deploying the National Guard and Marines against his own people, in scenes you'd think could only unfold in autocracies. But something very different is going on here. While there is mounting political pressure on Anthony Albanese to walk out of the meeting unscathed with a deal that looks to Australia's advantage, he goes in with a domestic advantage to Donald Trump. Australians aren't mugs — they see what's unfolding in the US and they have made it clear they don't want to see our PM play a subservient role in this increasingly unreliable relationship because of a volatile president. The contrast between Australia and America couldn't be starker. Findings from the latest drop of the 2025 Election Monitoring Survey Series from ANU point to a notable uptick in public confidence in Australia's democratic system following our election. Satisfaction with democracy reached its highest level since 2022, and perceptions of the country's direction also improved, particularly among younger Australians. The patterns suggest a "democracy bounce" effect, where a combination of the orderly conduct of the election, the decisive outcome and smooth transition into the next parliament may have contributed to renewed optimism about the political system. Australians are more satisfied with the direction of the country now than they have been since the start of 2024, with a significant and substantial increase from 57.7 per cent satisfied/very satisfied before the election to 62.9 per cent after. However, we're still below the level after the 2022 election, when 73.3 per cent of Australians reported that they were satisfied or very satisfied with the country's direction. Fascinatingly, those that are born overseas (particularly in a non-English speaking country) are more satisfied with democracy than those born in Australia, and they are substantially more likely to be satisfied with the direction of the country. In terms of democratic resilience, Australia's migration integration is a real success story. ANU's Professor Nicholas Biddle says trust in political institutions has also strengthened, particularly for the federal government, parliament, and political parties. But of concern, this increase has not extended to media or religious institutions, indicating the post-election rise in institutional trust is narrowly focused on the political domain. "While these trends are encouraging signs of democratic resilience, they should be interpreted with caution. The longer-term test will be whether satisfaction and trust can be sustained as the new parliament begins governing," he says. Australians' perceptions of election and the newly elected parliament also reveal a broadly positive assessment of democratic integrity. The ANU paper explores how Australians view the conduct of the election, the legitimacy of its outcome, and the representativeness of the incoming 48th parliament. While most Australians felt the election was fairly administered — with strong majorities endorsing the fairness of vote counting and election officials — there were notable concerns around media fairness and data misuse by candidates, reflecting a broader unease about the information environment in which elections are contested. Perceptions of electoral legitimacy varied significantly by age, education, geographic location, and, most sharply, by who they voted for at the election. Older Australians, inner-city dwellers and those with higher levels of education were more likely to view the election positively. Coalition and minor party voters, by contrast, expressed significantly lower levels of trust in the electoral process and its outcomes. This pattern extends to views on representativeness: while most Australians felt that parliament would represent "people like them", belief in representativeness was unevenly distributed. Those without Year 12 qualifications and voters for parties other than Labor were much less likely to feel politically seen or heard. Furthermore, the demographic group that voters were most likely to see as being represented well by the new parliament is "rich voters". Biddle says this belief aligns with other data from the long-term survey program. "[It] shows that Australians think the current distribution of income in Australia is both unfair, and corrosive to democratic principles," he says. "As we have seen in the US, if institutions and established parties won't respond to these concerns, then people will eventually take it into their own hands and tear these institutions down." The results point to an underlying tension in Australian democracy. On the one hand, there is widespread confidence in the mechanics of electoral administration; on the other, substantial segments of the population — particularly those on the losing side of the election — question whether the system delivers fair outcomes or genuine representation. Patricia Karvelas is host of ABC News Afternoon Briefing at 4pm weekdays on ABC News Channel, co-host of the weekly Party Room podcast with Fran Kelly and host of politics and news podcast Politics Now.
ABC News
2 hours ago
- ABC News
Australian government negotiates deal for Darwin Port as Landbridge defends lease
Out at the Darwin Port, the Australian boss of embattled Chinese-owned firm Landbridge pushes back against "myths and mistruths" he says his company has faced for a decade. From accusations of sinister links to China's People's Liberation Army (PLA), to warnings of influence exerted from within the nation's ruling Chinese Community Party. Landbridge Group, the company that holds a 99-year lease on the northern Australian port, granted 7.30 rare access to visit the facility that's now in the crosshairs of a geopolitical debate. The company's non-executive director for Australia, Terry O'Connor, attests they've been targeted by lies, aimed at firming up a narrative that the Port of Darwin leaseholders needed to be ousted. "We've seen a bit of hysteria around the fact that it's owned by a private Chinese individual [billionaire Ye Cheng]," Mr O'Connor said. "There's been many myths about the ownership process. "One that continues to amuse me is the perception that we're somehow connected with the People's Liberation Army in China — we're not. "If there's any alliance, our alliance is with the Australian military more than anybody else, let alone the PLA." Mr O'Connor has blamed political agendas in Canberra for fuelling the rhetoric. He took aim at recent commentary by Deputy Prime Minister Richard Marles, who late last month erroneously described Landbridge as a "Chinese government-controlled entity". It comes as the Albanese government moves to fulfil its federal election promise to get the Darwin Port lease "back under Australian control". He said Mr Ye's connections to the Chinese government were standard for business leaders in China. "I don't think there's any doubt he is connected with the Chinese party given his position in the Chinese business world, he certainly has connections within the Chinese government," he said. "[But] does that influence what happens here at the port on a day-to-day basis, a month-to-month basis, or a year-to-year basis? "The answer is no." Despite Mr O'Connor's defence of his company, Landbridge's days with the port may be numbered. The Australian government is working behind the scenes to find a buyer and strip the Darwin Port lease from Landbridge, and according to federal sources, it may happen sooner rather than later. Federal Infrastructure Minister Catherine King declined an interview on the matter, as the government negotiates with private companies interested in taking over the lease. For the first time, Landbridge has indicated it would be open to discussions around selling the asset. "We haven't investigated what a right price is, to be honest," Mr O'Connor said. If a buyer isn't found, the government has indicated it would be open to compulsorily acquiring the lease, which would likely cost taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars. The government's election promise was made 10 years after Landbridge won the port lease from the Northern Territory government in a competitive tender process, in 2015. Since then, the deal has been a magnet for national security debate, most pointedly after concerns were raised by then-US president Barack Obama to Australia's then-prime minister, Malcolm Turnbull. Despite the controversy, there's been two federal reviews, a parliamentary inquiry and public statements made by ASIO — none of which have made public findings of a security threat. Darwin-based defence expert Victor Abramowicz described the recent election promise as "national security chest-beating". However, he acknowledged that icy relations between Australia and China had likely been a factor in the decision, including instances earlier this year where Chinese warships entered Australian waters. "Beijing certainly hasn't done itself any favours," he said. "They put sanctions on Australian barley and wine and meat … they then sent the ships around. "This was all quite tertiary, it wasn't directly related to the port. Chinese Ambassador to Australia Xiao Qian declined an interview request for this story, but he's previously said any move to take back the Darwin Port lease would be "ethically questionable". The Albanese government hasn't said which companies are in the running to take over the port. But a number are said to be circling the facility. A joint bid is believed to be in the works between freighting giant Toll Group and US private equity firm Cerberus Capital Management, which has strong links to the Trump administration. Toll Group declined to confirm the matter, and Cerberus did not respond to 7.30's request for comment. The government has also said it's speaking with superannuation firms over the asset's future. In a statement, the infrastructure minister said the government would "work through proposals in a manner consistent with our approach to any proposed foreign investment in Australia". "[We are] working closely with the Northern Territory government on next steps," Ms King said. The NT's Labor Opposition Leader, Selena Uibo, said the current uncertainty surrounding the port's future was creating a similar situation to the one seen in 2015. NT Treasurer Bill Yan said the port's future was "ultimately a matter for the federal government". "As the landholder of Darwin Port, we continue to work with the Commonwealth in good faith to ensure that national interests are upheld," he said.
ABC News
2 hours ago
- ABC News
AUKUS faces bigger tests than Trump's 'America first' review, US and UK experts warn
Key defence figures on both sides of the Atlantic warn the risks to AUKUS run deeper than whether a review finds Australia's biggest ever defence deal is "America first" enough for Donald Trump. They've told Four Corners of the damage being done to decades-old alliances by Mr Trump's unpredictability and contempt for the US's allies, the UK's increasing focus on Europe, and concerns neither country has the capability to deliver the submarines on time or on budget. With Australia's allies holding all the cards, and our Indo-Pacific defence strategy at stake, it's possible we could be left billions out of pocket, without submarines, and with one of our oldest alliances in tatters. Even before the US decided to review the deal, a senior member of the country's powerful Armed Services Committee was warning Mr Trump's "idiotic" and "bullying" behaviour towards allies presented risks to the alliance with Australia. The US president has repeatedly said that he regards Canada as the "51st state", while his belittling of Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelenskyy in the Oval Office in February shocked American allies around the world. Mr Trump has also threatened to take back control of the Panama Canal and has not ruled out military force to wrest Greenland from Denmark. The House Armed Services Committee's highest-ranking Democrat, congressman Adam Smith, said Canberra had reason to be concerned about whether "the strong partnership between the US and Australia will remain". "I cannot possibly be critical enough of the way the Trump administration has treated our partners and allies since they were elected … it's really stupid," he said. "Their contempt for allies and partners has the potential, not just to undermine the AUKUS agreement, but to undermine the very national security of the United States of America." Former US National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan also fears that Mr Trump has undermined America's standing with its allies and partners. "I think this is a great source of alarm," Mr Sullivan, who served in the role under president Joe Biden, told Four Corners. "The direction of travel right now is quite disturbing." Mr Sullivan said he understood why allies such as Australia, may be wondering where they stand with the US president. "I'm not sure that [Mr Trump's] looking for territory Down Under … not to make light of it," Mr Sullivan said. Key voices in the UK, the third alliance partner, are also troubled about the implications for AUKUS. Former Royal Navy admiral Alan West said, "dear old Trump coming in, that has … stood everyone on their heads really". "Things that we absolutely took as a certainty are no longer a certainty," said Lord West, formerly the official who oversaw the Royal Navy's operations. "What he's been saying about Canada [being the 51st state] is outrageous actually. It's like stamping on a fluffy bunny really, isn't it? It's just terrible." Under the AUKUS agreement the US is supposed to transfer at least three nuclear-powered Virginia-class attack submarines to Australia in the 2030s. But it's not building enough Virginia-class submarines for its own fleet, let alone enough to supply Australia. To meet its targets the US would need to build them at a rate of 2.3 a year. It's only making 1.2 a year. Christopher Miller, who served as the acting Defense Secretary in the dying days of the first Trump administration, warns production is "moving too slow". "I think probably most of that's on the United States side, to be perfectly honest with you," Mr Miller said. "The problem is we don't have the workforce, the welders, the skilled machinists that are required." Adam Smith conceded slow production had put pressure on the AUKUS deal. "But I'm hoping that the AUKUS deal will also put pressure the other way. It'll put pressure to solve that problem," Mr Smith said. Earlier this year Australia's Defence minister handed over $800 million to his US counterpart. It's the first of six payments designed to help bolster the struggling American submarine industry. The chief of the Royal Australian Navy, Vice Admiral Mark Hammond, told Four Corners Washington was determined to boost production and to fulfil its obligations under the deal. "That is the United States Navy's job to set the conditions to enable that to succeed," Vice Admiral Hammond said. "They're being backed up with strategic investment by the United States and by Australia. So I've got every reason to believe they will succeed." The Trump administration said its review of AUKUS includes ensuring it is "aligned with the president's 'America first' agenda" and that "the defence industrial base is meeting our needs". AUKUS critics, like the former commander of the Royal Australian Navy's submarine squadron, Peter Briggs, warn that Australia could lose everything it has bet on the nuclear subs. "This is a good deal for the Americans," Mr Briggs said. "If they see that the AUKUS program is impacting on their capabilities, they can walk away from it." Under the United States' AUKUS legislation, the president has to certify to Congress that any transfer of Virginia-class submarines to Australia would not degrade America's undersea capabilities. Otherwise, the transfer will not take place. Jake Sullivan is confident that whoever is president when the certification has to take place will honour the deal. "If the US woke up one day and decided it was not going to follow through on AUKUS, could it do that in reality? Yes, of course," Mr Sullivan said. But he said the AUKUS deal ultimately benefits both sides, and added that the US and Australia have long had a relationship of trust and sticking to agreements. The man leading the review, Under Secretary of Defense for Policy Elbridge Colby, has been staunchly opposed to transferring any Virginia-class submarines to Australia while they are needed by the US. Last year, before his elevation to the Pentagon, Mr Colby told the ABC it would weaken American strike power. "It would be crazy for the United States to give away its single most important asset for a conflict with China over Taiwan," he said at the time. That view isn't shared by other Republicans close to Donald Trump. "We're not 'giving them away'. I mean, we are putting them in the hands of our friends in Australia," Republican congressman Rob Wittman told Four Corners. He said having Australia equipped with Virginia-class subs would place an obligation on Canberra to use them to assist the US in the Indo-Pacific. "That's a force multiplier for the United States and our friends in that region of the world." The prospect of "leverage" concerns some, who warn the deal could undermine Australia's sovereignty. Mr Briggs fears it could lock Australia into following the Americans into a confrontation with China over Taiwan. "You are in the punch-up, whether you like it or not," Mr Briggs said. Vice Admiral Hammond said just because Australia would be using US technology didn't mean our sovereignty would be challenged. "I think it just rings a little hollow," he said. "I know that there are critics out there who believe that this technology is so exquisite, it shouldn't be gifted or sold unless there was a guarantee associated with it. That hasn't been part of the program to date." Mr Trump's approach to diplomacy and the US's lagging production are not the only factors threatening to disrupt AUKUS. Under the plan the UK will design a brand-new nuclear-powered submarine called the SSN-AUKUS. Construction is due to begin by the end of this decade in the UK and Australia. But the UK is facing more pressing challenges closer to home. Since the signing of the agreement in 2021, Europe has seen the outbreak of the largest war on the continent since World War II. Senior UK defence experts say that has up-ended the country's defence priorities. Sir Michael Fallon, who served as the UK's defence secretary from 2014 to 2017, is a strong supporter of the AUKUS alliance. "A lot has changed. We've had our own continent invaded by Russia. Something that I don't think every anybody properly predicted," Sir Michael said. "The challenges have grown. The world has got more dangerous." Mr Trump has made it clear that Europe is no longer Washington's first priority, warning this year that the US may not protect NATO members who were not paying enough for their own defence. In response, the UK and other European nations have scrambled to re-prioritise trillions in spending to beef up their armed forces and defences. A review of the UK's defence strategy released this month committed to getting up to 12 SSN-AUKUS attack submarines in the water on schedule. But it has also pointed to a strategic shift caused by the Russian invasion of Ukraine, reinforcing the need for what the review calls a "NATO first" policy. "While Britain, of course, has important relations with Australia, the centre of gravity of the country's security is in Europe," former UK National Security Adviser Peter Ricketts said. "I think the whole context in which the AUKUS deal was struck has changed and has changed Europe. I don't think it's going to go back. I think we are now going to be spending and focusing on our security in Europe for the foreseeable future." The US isn't alone in struggling with submarine production. Former First Sea Lord Alan West said the UK currently does not have the workforce or the specialist skills to deliver the SSN-AUKUS on time. "They're not there yet. We've got to have a really major training program in terms of shipyard ability and also in terms of the nuclear ability," Lord West said. "The trouble is with huge complex programs like building nuclear submarines, you know, it's not like building a shirt for Marks and Spencer. I mean, the length of time is huge." Lord Ricketts said Australia should not expect the SSN-AUKUS to arrive on time or budget. "I think any sensible defence calculation will be that these things will be more expensive and later than is currently expected," he said. "Australia has to expect that the timelines that are now drawn are bound to string out." The final stage of the deal involves Australia starting its own production line of SSN-AUKUS subs. Vice Admiral Jonathan Mead, who heads the Australian agency tasked with overseeing the AUKUS program said the SSN-AUKUS subs are on track. "We're absolutely committed to building our own nuclear-powered submarine and having that delivered in the early 2040s. That is our plan. That is our commitment," Vice Admiral Mead said. "I'm not underestimating the complexity of this. This is the most demanding technological and industrial undertaking that any government in Australia has embarked upon. This will be probably the most complex engineering feat in the world." Watch Four Corners's full investigation, Submerged, tonight from 8:30pm on ABC TV and ABC iview.
