Response to the Queensland Housing Strategy Discussion Paper
Working Together for Better Housing and Sustainable Communities
From Mission Australia and Mission Australia Housing
Introduction
Mission Australia (MA) and Mission Australia Housing (MAH) welcome the opportunity to provide
comment and feedback on the Queensland Government’s Discussion Paper for a new Housing
Strategy.
About us
Mission Australia is a national non-denominational Christian organisation, with more than 155 years'
experience in standing together with Australians in need on their journey to independence. Our
evidence-based, client-centred community services are focused on reducing homelessness and
strengthening communities across Australia.
In the 2014-15 financial year, we supported over 307,000 Australians through 589 programs and
services including: programs targeting homelessness; services providing integrated family support;
parenting programs; early childhood education; mental health services; residential drug and alcohol
programs; youth programs; access to safe and secure housing; and programs to build capacity,
resilience and opportunity for local communities.
To achieve our goal, we work in partnership with communities, supporters, government, businesses
and other organisations. We measure our impact, collecting evidence of what works to inform our
service design and delivery, and to advocate for change.
In 2009, Mission Australia (MA) established Mission Australia Housing (MAH), a Tier 1 Community
Housing Provider. MAH currently owns or manages more than 2,000 social and affordable homes,
including the $32 million Common Ground development in Sydney. Together, MA and MAH work to
strengthen communities and reduce homelessness.
In Queensland, our housing-related services include the following:

Douglas House:
- delivered by Mission Australia in Cairns
- funded through the Queensland Department of Housing and Public Works
Response to the Queensland Housing Strategy Discussion Paper
Working Together for Better Housing and Sustainable Communities
page 1
-
provides transitional housing to homeless individuals and couples and support to
transition to stable accommodation, find pathways to work and access long term
housing

Going Places Street to Home:
- delivered by Mission Australia in Cairns
- funded through the Queensland Department of Communities, Child Safety and
Disability Services
- provides an outreach service, supporting people who are sleeping rough or
experiencing chronic homelessness to move into stable, long term sustainable
housing

Roma House:
- delivered by Mission Australia in Brisbane
- funded through the Queensland Department of Housing and Public Works
- provides medium term supported accommodation to people that have experienced
chronic homelessness and support to transition to stable accommodation, find
pathways to work and access long term housing

Mornington Island Women’s Shelter:
- delivered by Mission Australia on Mornington Island
- funded through the Department of Communities, Child Safety and Disability Services
- provides temporary accommodation and support to Aboriginal and Torres Strait
Islander women, including women with children, who are homeless or at risk of
homelessness due to domestic violence

Woree Supportive Housing Accommodation:
- soon to be delivered by Mission Australia in Cairns
- funded through the Queensland Department of Housing and Public Works
- will provide long term supported housing with individualised case management
Response to the Queensland Housing Strategy Discussion Paper
Working Together for Better Housing and Sustainable Communities
page 2
Executive summary
Mission Australia and Mission Australia Housing welcome the vision contained in the Queensland
Government’s Discussion Paper on future directions for housing and homelessness in Queensland. We
support the broad approach taken in the paper, analysing the entire housing continuum – from
homelessness and social housing through to affordable rental and home ownership. This is crucial to
identifying affordable and sustainable housing and support solutions for low-income and other
vulnerable people in Queensland.
We support the approach outlined in the Discussion Paper in relation to working together across all
levels of government and the non-government sectors and private industry to achieve:

sustainable communities;

housing that is affordable to people on low and moderate incomes; and
 a responsive housing system.
The Discussion Paper is comprehensive in analysing the housing needs in Queensland and raising
questions about improving affordability, supporting communities and reforming service delivery.
We appreciate the opportunity to provide input to the development of Queensland’s housing and
homelessness strategy. Mission Australia staff have participated in workshops organised by the
Department of Housing and Public Works and we would welcome further opportunities to discuss the
issues raised there and in this submission with the Department.
This submission does not reiterate the areas covered in the Discussion Paper, but aims to add to these
from our service experience and evidence base. In summary, Mission Australia and Mission Australia
Housing recommend that the Queensland Government consider the following issues and
recommendations in developing a strategy for Queensland.
Sustainable communities
Stronger communities, in locations of entrenched disadvantage

We recommend that the Queensland Government develop a program for communities
experiencing persistent and entrenched disadvantage with the following integrated
components:
- management transfers to community housing providers via long term contracts to
manage current public housing properties and tenancies;
- a realistic asset renewal program;
- development of place-based community development plans;
- strengths-based partnerships with local community organisations, including where
relevant Indigenous Community Housing Organisations;
- integrated community strengthening work; and
- articulation and measurement of outcomes.
Response to the Queensland Housing Strategy Discussion Paper
Working Together for Better Housing and Sustainable Communities
page 3
Housing affordability
Institutional investment

Government contributions to address the yield gap are necessary to unlock institutional
investment in below-market housing, in order to ensure an adequate return on financiers’
investment.
The role of the Commonwealth Government

We urge the Queensland Government to advocate through Housing Ministers meetings and
COAG for an increased role by the Commonwealth Government in improving housing
affordability. A comprehensive national plan should include: a national social and affordable
housing fund; transfers of Commonwealth owned land; a national program of management
transfers of public housing to the community housing sector; expanding Commonwealth Rent
Assistance eligibility to all social housing tenants; creating a new asset class of mezzanine
housing; tax reform; and welfare reform.
Queensland Government actions

In the absence of leadership and action at the national level, the Queensland Government
should institute: a state-based social and affordable housing fund; a program of transfers of
Queensland Government owned land; a pipeline of management transfers of public housing
stock and tenants to the community housing sector.
Planning reform

The Queensland Government can encourage new supply through statewide planning reforms
including inclusionary zoning which requires, at least, all major residential developments to
include a proportion of below-market housing.
Targets

Introducing stretch targets for the creation of new housing – across social housing, affordable
housing and Indigenous-owned housing in Queensland – would set directional milestones and
enable measurement of progress.
Role of community housing sector

Community housing providers can deliver better tenant and community outcomes than those
provided by the public housing system, through long term management transfer
arrangements. The Queensland Government should articulate its intentions for the sector’s
future, including growth targets and timeframes for management transfers, to provide the
certainty necessary for CHPs’ investment.
Responsive housing system
We recommend the Queensland Government commit to halving youth homelessness by 2020, and
halving total homelessness by 2025;
Response to the Queensland Housing Strategy Discussion Paper
Working Together for Better Housing and Sustainable Communities
page 4
Early intervention for people at risk of homelessness

A stronger emphasis in the homelessness service system on early intervention homelessness
approaches would produce benefits to individuals and avoid costs in other service systems
funded by the Queensland Government, in particular the health and justice systems;

The effective “coalitions of schools and services” model should be rolled out to areas with risk
prevalence of youth homelessness in Queensland;

The Queensland Government should exert pressure through the Housing Ministers’ meeting
and COAG for the Commonwealth Government to extend and guarantee the continuation of
the Reconnect program for another five years;
Homelessness funding

The Queensland Government should advocate strongly through Housing Ministers’ meetings
and COAG that the Commonwealth Government commit to adequate and stable
interjurisdictional funding arrangements for housing and homelessness;
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander homelessness

Priority place-based investment is needed in new Aboriginal owned and controlled housing
and crisis and transitional accommodation to address overcrowding in remote communities
and regional centres across Queensland;
Outcome measurement

Inclusion of an outcomes measurement framework in the Queensland housing and
homelessness strategy will assist in ascertaining the ongoing effectiveness of service delivery
in achieving client outcomes.
Response to the Queensland Housing Strategy Discussion Paper
Working Together for Better Housing and Sustainable Communities
page 5
Theme 1 – Sustainable communities
Community strengthening
We are pleased to note the inclusion in the Discussion Paper of the possibility of place-based
strategies that take into account the collective resources and strengths and the housing and other
needs in a given community.
It would be helpful for the Housing Strategy to provide further guidance on the Government’s
intentions for such place-based approaches, especially in communities of persistent and entrenched
locational disadvantage. Such approaches need to be based on strong local consultation, be flexible in
adapting to changes and lessons learnt and be community-driven. They should be informed by a deep
understanding of strengths and capacities within these communities, as well as their multiple needs.
Collective impact projects, such as those funded under the Commonwealth Government’s
Communities for Children program, have good prospects of harnessing local community, service
provider and agency contributions.
The likelihood of success of place-based approaches in locations with persistent and entrenched
disadvantage is enhanced when social housing management is integrated into the model.
Infrastructure renewal, everyday dealings on tenancy and property matters, coordination of
community services and community strengthening initiatives should be integrated to increase the
opportunities for meaningful interactions with community members, which can assist in breaking the
cycle of entrenched and intergenerational disadvantage. Operating such models on a minimum ten
year contractual commitment with upfront funding can maximise sustainable change from within a
community, resulting in measurable outcomes.
Mission Australia practices this assets-based mode of community development, in conjunction with
Mission Australia Housing, using methods such as community building, neighbourhood renewal and
asset mapping to fortify social capital. Our model harnesses the range of capabilities and meets the
different needs within a community. This can include intensive case management through specialised
support services, case coordination where we have a full view of tenants’ support needs, whole-ofcommunity projects, and holistic tenancy and property management.
Response to the Queensland Housing Strategy Discussion Paper
Working Together for Better Housing and Sustainable Communities
page 6
Partnerships
Each community strengthening plan will be different, to reflect the unique characteristics of each
community. An essential success factor in building sustainable and resilient communities is a strong
grounding in local circumstances and, for this, partnership with existing local organisations and groups
is critical.
For Mission Australia, partnerships are an essential part of our work, to achieve more together than it
would be possible for individual organisations to achieve alone. Through effective partnerships, our
clients receive a more integrated and streamlined service and the capacity of the service system is
increased to meet the multiple and complex needs of individuals and families seeking support.
Our Partnership Framework explains our commitment to becoming a partner of choice through
equipping staff with tools and principles to develop locally grounded, yet nationally supported
relationships to reduce homelessness and strengthen communities.
An example of a community strengthening program is described in the box below, highlighting
collaboration between government, community housing provider (CHP), support providers, local
organisations and the community.
For communities of persistent and entrenched disadvantage with significant numbers of Aboriginal
and Torres Strait Islander (ATSI) individuals and families, a partnership approach is especially
important. Local ATSI groups are best placed to understand their community’s unique circumstances,
strengths, cultural practices and aspirations, and to advise on how to secure input, engagement and
ownership.
Indigenous Community Housing Organisations (ICHOs) can play a key role here. Where relevant,
partnerships between large-scale CHPs and locally-based ICHOs can move from an initial stage of twoway knowledge transfer (with, for example, ICHOs transferring knowledge of local circumstances and
CHPs transferring knowledge of operational practice and governance), through a collaborative codelivery stage, to an end-point of CHP withdrawal and transfer of the property and tenancy
management role to the ICHO.
Recommendations
We recommend that the Queensland Government develop a program for communities experiencing
persistent and entrenched disadvantage with the following integrated components:

management transfers to CHPs via long term contracts to manage current public housing
properties and tenancies

a realistic asset renewal program

development of place-based community development plans

strengths-based partnerships with local community organisations (including where relevant
ICHOs)

integrated community strengthening work

articulation and measurement of outcomes
Response to the Queensland Housing Strategy Discussion Paper
Working Together for Better Housing and Sustainable Communities
page 7
Theme 2 – Housing affordability
The need for more below-market housing
Queensland, and Australia as a whole, is experiencing a general failure of the housing market that has
resulted in a severe lack of housing in many areas that people on low and moderate incomes can
afford. This shortage exists in social housing, the private rental market and for home ownership.
This shortage is a barrier to Queensland’s productivity. In some locations in the state, prospective
workers cannot afford to live where there are jobs. In others, workers pay too much of their income in
housing costs, limiting their capacity to save for retirement, forcing them to forego spending on
education, health and necessities, and putting them at risk of financial crisis. For people receiving
income support, housing costs can limit their opportunity, perpetuating reliance on state and federal
government payments and programs.
High housing costs drive some people into homelessness. We know this is economically wasteful – as
the homelessness support system is higher cost than affordable housing - as well as personally
damaging for individuals, families and children.
High housing costs also prevent people in crisis accommodation from exiting into sustainable housing,
leading to extremely high unmet demand in the homelessness system and suboptimal housing
outcomes for many clients. For example, across Australia, only 6% of people seeking help from
homelessness services who need long-term accommodation actually receive it.
Housing is an important foundation for education and employment. Without an appropriate home
environment, it is difficult for people to connect and belong within the community. The disruption
associated with a lack of permanent housing and frequent moves has been identified as an
impediment to job retention. The evidence is clear – unaffordable and insecure housing causes a range
of economic and social problems.
Housing which is unaffordable to people on low and moderate incomes drives higher costs to
state/territory and federal government through increased use of high-cost social services, including
specialist homelessness services.
On the flip side, housing construction and maintenance boosts productivity through more jobs. A
workforce that is stably and affordably housed is a pool of people able to save for retirement and
invest in the future including education for their children. When people unable to work are stably and
affordably housed, their use of government-funded services decreases – such as the health, criminal
justice, homelessness and social support systems.
For example, Mission Australia’s internationally renowned MISHA research project provided
homeless men with support to enter and sustain permanent housing. At the same time, this
project evaluated the service model with respect to client outcomes and the direct
economic benefits to government and the wider society. At project commencement
$32,254 per person per year was spent on health, justice and welfare supports. After just 24
months, this reduced to $24,251 per person per year, with 89% of participants sustaining
secure housing. This represents an $8,002 saving per person to government.
Response to the Queensland Housing Strategy Discussion Paper
Working Together for Better Housing and Sustainable Communities
page 8
In brief, the shortage of adequate levels of housing for people on low to moderate incomes is an
urgent problem facing Queensland. If we want to reduce homelessness, lower welfare dependency
and increase individuals’ capacity to move to independence, we need more social and affordable
housing.
Addressing the yield gap
Mission Australia Housing has ongoing engagement with the finance sector on several housing
projects, such as our current consortium proposal to the NSW Government’s Social and Affordable
Housing Fund. These engagements have convinced us of the significant scope to unlock finance flows
from institutional investors into below-market housing for Queensland and across Australia.
Introduction of new financing models can facilitate such flows and we have made a strong submission
to the Federal Government’s Affordable Housing Working Group which is examining such mechanisms.
(This paper reiterates the key points in our submission.) However, new financing models are a
necessary but not sufficient precondition to achieve the goal of increased supply of below-market
housing.
The key precondition to grow below-market housing supply by unlocking institutional
finance is adequate return on investment. To achieve that, the yield gap inherent in the
below-market business model must be resolved through government contributions.
The yield gap arises because income for providers of below-market housing (being tenant rent pegged
to income or at a discount to market value, plus government assistance primarily through
Commonwealth Rent Assistance) cannot meet true operating costs (including lifetime maintenance
and tenancy management for the relevant cohorts) and provide an adequate return to investors.
Without addressing the yield gap, institutional finance will not be attracted.
Conversely, where this has been addressed, private and institutional finance has flowed into belowmarket housing. For example:

the NSW Social and Affordable Housing Fund (SAHF) – which will see $1 billion of NSW
Government contributions through a 25 year subsidy stream attracting institutional and
private investment to deliver 3,000 new below-market dwellings;

the National Rental Affordability Scheme (NRAS) – which saw Commonwealth Government
contributions incentivising private investment to create many thousands of new below-market
dwellings;

the establishment of the Defence Housing Authority – where Commonwealth Government
contributions make up the yield gap, which attracts private investors to a financially
sustainable portfolio of 18,000 below-market dwellings;
Response to the Queensland Housing Strategy Discussion Paper
Working Together for Better Housing and Sustainable Communities
page 9

the creation of CityWest Housing in NSW – where a Commonwealth Government contribution
of seed funds through the Better Cities Program and a State Government levy on commercial
and residential development has stimulated strong growth in social and affordable housing in
inner Sydney;

the “user cost of capital” contributions to be made available to clients of the National
Disability Insurance Scheme who need special purpose housing; and

numerous schemes where State Government contributions in the form of land and/or
property management have leveraged other investment to create new dwellings and improve
community and individual outcomes, such as:
- Communities Plus in NSW;
- Connected Living in Western Australia; and
- Renewal South Australia’s transfer program.
Government contributions to address yield gap
We believe that the best arrangement would be a new national scheme of government contribution,
at scale, to bridge the yield gap and thus ensure adequate investor returns and stimulate finance
flows, complemented by facilitating mechanisms such as a financing mechanisms (such as a finance
aggregator), planning and tax reforms. This new scheme should be multi-faceted, to include:
1. A national social and affordable housing fund.
This should provide an income stream for new supply and could be modelled on the SAHF in
NSW;
2. A national program of transfers of appropriate land owned by Commonwealth and State
Governments.
Communication of a long-term program is needed to provide a pipeline of projects in which
investors can have confidence;
3. A national program of transfers of property and tenancy management of public housing
stock and tenants
In locations other than the above two contributions. Our position is that property and tenancy
management via the community housing sector delivers greater client and community
outcomes than management by public housing authorities. At the same time, such a program
would provide necessary scale to the community housing sector and ensure that current social
housing issues can be addressed while also building new social housing;
4. An expansion of CRA eligibility to all social housing tenants
By removing the current Commonwealth Government’s cap on CRA payments in States where
the proportion of social housing managed by community housing providers exceeds 35% of
total social housing stock. Also relevant here is the inadequacy of CRA, and Mission Australia
advocates for it to be redesigned to keep up with the real costs of housing;
5. Creation of a new asset class of mezzanine housing.
The current barriers to transition from social housing to private rental are too vast for most
social housing tenants to overcome. A mezzanine level of rental stock – sitting between social
housing and the private rental market – would go a long way to bridging this gap and
providing viable options for tenants transitioning to independence while taking pressure off
social housing waiting lists;
Response to the Queensland Housing Strategy Discussion Paper
Working Together for Better Housing and Sustainable Communities
page 10
6. Tax reform.
Commonwealth tax reform is also critical to improving housing affordability. Current taxation
settings favour owner-occupiers over other household types, have skewed the market
towards speculative investment in higher cost housing and therefore compounded issues
around affordability. Reform of settings around negative gearing, capital gains tax and land tax
could address market distortions that currently freeze low income families out of housing they
can afford. Tax reform should help make affordable housing attractive to institutional
investors, such as superannuation funds and other finance sources, at the scale at which
investment is most effective; and
7. Welfare reform.
Welfare reform must be considered at the same time as tax reform, due to the
interconnections between the two systems for the many welfare recipients who live in
housing stress or at risk of homelessness or who are currently homeless. For example, even
with CRA, 40% of recipients remain in housing stress, and the Youth Allowance is inadequate
to cover rent as well as food and other basic necessities.
These 7 initiatives should be encompassed within a national plan to improve housing affordability, led
by the Commonwealth Government.
Role of the Commonwealth Government
Housing affordability in Queensland, and across the country, will not improve substantially without
Commonwealth leadership. Federal responsibilities for taxation, welfare, infrastructure and
immigration as well as the Commonwealth’s transfers to the States to deliver housing services make
this very clear.
These ‘macro’ settings have profound influences on housing affordability. Without Commonwealth
leadership and coordination through COAG, State/Territory and Commonwealth policies are too often
pulling in opposite directions.
The Commonwealth has significantly greater borrowing capacity than State and Territory
Governments, and can be a much more effective catalyst for investment in social and affordable
housing. Individual states and territories, with their smaller populations relative to the national
population, cannot provide an adequately scaled pipeline of projects to attract major institutional
investment; such a pipeline needs is best engineered at a national level.
We believe the Queensland Housing Strategy should outline these matters and contain a commitment
from the Queensland Government to advocate strongly, alongside other State and Territory
Governments, through Housing Ministers’ meetings, COAG and other interjurisdictional fora, to ensure
that Commonwealth levers - especially tax and welfare settings - are effective in improving housing
outcomes for low and moderate income earners and other vulnerable people.
Role of the Queensland Government
In the absence of leadership and action at the national level, the Queensland Government can address
the yield gap within their own jurisdictions by instituting:
Response to the Queensland Housing Strategy Discussion Paper
Working Together for Better Housing and Sustainable Communities
page 11

A state-based social and affordable housing fund.
The SAHF in NSW is demonstrating the effectiveness of such a single-state approach, although
the differing budgetary circumstances in other jurisdictions are recognised;

A program of transfers of Queensland Government owned land.
This could include public housing land that is well-located, and value capture schemes for
renewal projects such as new rail corridors or urban redevelopments involving governmentowned land;

A pipeline of management transfers of public housing stock and tenants.
We maintain that title transfer is not necessary, and that transfer of property and tenancy
management to the community housing sector will deliver significant client and community
outcomes; and

Planning reforms.
Mandatory inclusionary zoning has been proven to be effective in in stimulating below-market
housing supply both overseas, and in Australia.i When land value increases through planning
changes, part of that value should be captured through such mechanisms for the public good.
The Queensland planning system should maximise development of below-market housing by
requiring, at least, all major residential developments to include a proportion of such housing.
Targets for growing below-market housing
Mission Australia’s Homelessness Policy,ii released in September last year, called on Commonwealth,
State and Territory Governments to facilitate funding of at least 200,000 new social homes by 2025
and capital works programs to update existing social housing infrastructure across Australia.
An essential component of this is the need for a further 4,200 new Aboriginal-owned and controlled
homes in remote communities and regional centres nationally, to combat the very high number of
Indigenous people living in severely overcrowded dwellings and double the impact of the current
inter-governmental agreement on Indigenous housing.
We believe that the Queensland Housing Strategy should set ambitious but achievable targets for new
supply of social, affordable and Indigenous-owned housing in Queensland.
Role of community housing sector
Community Housing Providers (CHPs) can facilitate the Queensland Government’s vision as outlined in
the Discussion Paper, by delivering tenancy and property management services efficiently and
effectively tailored to the needs of different Queensland communities. In brief the advantages of
delivery of social housing services by CHPs rather than through public housing authorities include:

CHPs’ service delivery is more flexible, adaptable and responsive to the needs of residents and
their communities than public housing;

CHPs have a greater ability to partner with support provider organisations than do public
housing authorities; so, they are better placed to ensure integrated service delivery to meet a
social housing tenant’s full range of needs including tenancy management, property
management and support requirements. Mission Australia Housing (as CHP) is particularly well
placed in its strong organisational linkages with Mission Australia (as provider of
linkage/referral/ coordination services and of support services);
Response to the Queensland Housing Strategy Discussion Paper
Working Together for Better Housing and Sustainable Communities
page 12

CHPs and their partner support providers are better able than public housing authorities to
deliver place-based collective impact approaches, especially in locations of entrenched
disadvantage. CHPs’ focus on improving social outcomes for tenants and their neighbourhoods
can be facilitated if governments align community service delivery with CHP portfolio
management;

CHPs are able to leverage private sector and philanthropic funding, including harnessing the
emerging appetite of the institutional investment sector; and

CHPs can also play an active role in supporting new housing supply through managing new
stock and delivering the associated individual and community support functions. However,
CHPs are not the sole solution to the housing supply problem, as the sector does not have the
financial capacity to deliver this through either their own capital or through leverage.iii There
is risk in requiring a high level of gearing for CHPs as this could lead to an industry focus on
financial outcomes for lending institutions over social outcomes for clients.
To achieve any of this, CHPs need to be of sufficient scale. Mission Australia Housing contends that
the Queensland Government can support a viable community housing sector in Queensland through
transfers of public housing management. Vesting of assets is not a necessity, but management
contracts need to be long-term (over ten years) so that CHPs can deliver this generational social
change.
A precondition for the development of a strong community housing sector in Queensland is policy
clarity. An articulation in its housing strategy of the Queensland Government’s intentions for the
sector’s future, including growth targets and timeframes for management transfers, would assist in
providing the certainty necessary for investment and growth.
Douglas House
Douglas House is an innovative 22-unit supported housing facility in Cairns that offers safe and
secure housing with essential on-site support services. Owned by the Queensland Department
of Housing and Public Works, it is part of the Government’s strategy to tackle homelessness by
helping people off the streets and into affordable, long term housing.
MAH provides the tenancy and property management of Douglas House, with MA delivering
tailored services to each tenant. Together we provide a safe and stable environment for
vulnerable people, many of whom are of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander backgrounds,
empowering them to address issues such as drug and alcohol abuse, family breakdown or
domestic violence and turn their lives around.
MA’s trained recovery workers know and understand the complex reasons that lead to
homelessness, as well as the challenges to stability posed by severe and persistent mental
illness, chronic health conditions and alcohol and substance abuse. We work closely with our
tenants and take time to gain their trust. Working in partnership, we deliver the physical,
mental, emotional and psychological care our tenants need to successfully secure and
maintain permanent housing in the future.
Response to the Queensland Housing Strategy Discussion Paper
Working Together for Better Housing and Sustainable Communities
page 13
Recommendations
We recommend that the Queensland Government:

recognise that government contributions to address the yield gap are necessary to unlock
institutional investment in below-market housing, in order to ensure an adequate return on
financiers’ investment;

advocate through Housing Ministers meetings and COAG for an increased role by the
Commonwealth Government via: a national social and affordable housing fund; a national
program of transfers of Commonwealth owned land; a national program of management
transfers of public housing to CHPs; expanding CRA eligibility to all social housing tenants;
creating a new asset class of mezzanine housing; tax reform; and welfare reform;

institute, in the absence of leadership and action at the national level: a state-based social and
affordable housing fund; a program of transfers of Queensland Government owned land; a
pipeline of management transfers of public housing stock and tenants; and planning reforms
including inclusionary zoning which requires, at least, all major residential developments to
include a proportion of below-market housing;

introduce stretch targets for the creation of new housing – across social housing, affordable
housing and Indigenous-owned housing in Queensland, to setting directional milestones and
enabling measurement of progress; and

articulate its intentions for the community housing sector’s future, including growth targets
and timeframes for management transfers.
Response to the Queensland Housing Strategy Discussion Paper
Working Together for Better Housing and Sustainable Communities
page 14
Theme 3 – Responsive housing system
Responding to people’s needs
The Discussion Paper states: “Our vision is to build a best practice, single, accessible housing
assistance system that better integrates and coordinates products and services across the housing
continuum: from homelessness to social housing to private market pathways and affordable housing
choices. This requires a housing service delivery model that is people-centred and operating within a
human services framework.”
At the Department’s workshops which took a “deep dive” into housing as a human service, the vision
for housing as a human service was proposed as: “A housing assistance and homelessness support
system which is respectful and person-centred, coordinating the integration and delivery of services to
achieve safe, secure, sustainable, and appropriate housing and quality of life outcomes for
Queenslanders.” It was proposed that a number of principles would define the future of housing
assistance programs in Queensland: person-centred; quality; sustainable and efficient; integrated; and
simplified.
Mission Australia strongly supports the planned shift towards person-centred delivery of housing and
homelessness services. Implementing this will require the Department to embrace cultural change,
alter its processes, policies and practices, and adopt new ways of working.
We would like to take this opportunity to highlight some of the current policies and practices that are
preventing a truly person-centred approach, as these exemplify the extent of change required.

The Department requires two forms of identification before finalising an application on the
public housing waiting list. Many people experiencing disadvantage in the community cannot
meet this requirement and the complicated process and cost associated with acquiring
identification create an onerous barrier to securing housing. This is particularly difficult for
people experiencing the chaotic nature of crisis situations, people who are sleeping rough,
couch surfing or in emergency accommodation, and people with limited literacy and/or
experience of bureaucratic processes. A truly person-centred approach would address this
barrier, for example by allowing applicants to be registered on the waiting list while their
identification is being processed, or interdepartmental protocols to fast-track the process for
people in such circumstances, or similar initiatives.

People who are assessed as Very High Need on the social housing waiting list are required to
complete and return a review form every six months. Failure to return this form results in their
public housing application being cancelled. Many people classified as Very High Needs have
transient lifestyles, are highly unlikely to be in the same location as when they submitted their
initial application and so often fail to receive the form. Others may receive the form but are
unaware of its significance or unable to complete it. This requirement thus inadvertently
disadvantages the most vulnerable people from finding stable housing.
Response to the Queensland Housing Strategy Discussion Paper
Working Together for Better Housing and Sustainable Communities
page 15
These two examples demonstrate how a range of processes, policies and practices need to be
redesigned from a client’s perspective to be truly person-centred. Such a whole-scale exercise could
benefit from approaches such as behavioural insights, design thinking and customer-informed design.
Children and young people experiencing or at risk of homelessness
In February this year, Mission Australia released its report Home and Away: Child and Youth
Homelessness.iv This section outlines its major findings.
According to the 2011 Census, about 44,000 Australian children and young people are homeless. Some
8,000 of these live in Queensland.v The reality is worse; many others are ‘hidden homeless’ who are
not counted in the official statistics.
There is a growing body of evidence being developed about the true picture of child and youth
homelessness. Our own primary research, the Mission Australia Youth Survey, gives a special insight
into the housing experiences of young people across Australia and from different socio-economic
backgrounds, which is rare in the youth homelessness literature.
The Youth Survey uncovered a substantial number of young people experiencing housing instability,
frequently as a result of family breakdown or conflict, which may impact negatively on their schooling,
support networks, community connections and familial bonds.
It also revealed that nearly one in seven young Australians responding to the survey had spent time
away from home because they couldn’t return, a proxy indicator for couch surfing. The vast majority
of these young people had done so on more than one occasion and some had typically stayed away for
periods longer than six months.
The Youth Survey’s findings point to the existence of a critical group of young couch surfers with poor
family relationships, experiencing family conflict, not feeling confident about the future, unsure of
their ability to cope with stress, concerned about depression and suicide, who leave home repeatedly,
often for extended periods, because they feel they can’t stay with their families at home.
The Youth Survey’s finding of the prevalence of family conflict and couch surfing is also reflected in
other recent Australian research. Family conflict affects 1.9 million Australian children in their early to
middle years. Over 85% of homeless young people had spent time couch surfing before they were 18.
Even amongst non-homeless young people, 38% had couch surfed at some point. These young people
are on a pathway to entrenched homelessness unless action is taken.
Mission Australia calls for youth homelessness to be halved by 2020. This is an important step on the
path to halving total homelessness by 2025. While this is an ambitious target, we believe it is feasible.
We know what works, but it needs funding, leadership, continuous commitment and shared effort.
The diagram on the next page sets out our recommended approach.
Response to the Queensland Housing Strategy Discussion Paper
Working Together for Better Housing and Sustainable Communities
page 16
Response to the Queensland Housing Strategy Discussion Paper
Working Together for Better Housing and Sustainable Communities
page 17
Early intervention for young people at risk of homelessness
Mission Australia strongly supports the focus in the Queensland Government’s Discussion Paper on
early intervention to stop people at risk from becoming homeless. This is particularly relevant for
young people, where identifying problems early and intervening quickly to address them has better
outcomes, as there is a greater likelihood that problems can be resolved before they escalate to crisis
point.
Early intervention approaches are also more cost effective, because costs increase as problems
worsen and become more difficult to resolve. This is demonstrated in the recent Cost of Youth
Homelessness report by Swinburne University, the Centre for Social Impact and Charles Sturt
University, supported by Mission Australia, the Salvation Army and Anglicare ACT.vi
The research compared young people accessing homelessness services or at high risk of homelessness
with disadvantaged young people identified through employment services. It found that preventing
young people from becoming homeless in the first place could save governments an estimated $626
million per year across the youth justice and health services systems alone.
Early intervention can assist young people to remain with their family (if safe), at school and within
their existing social networks, and prevent them adopting a transient lifestyle, becoming involved in
the homeless sub-culture and making the transition to chronic homelessness.vii
The COSS model
A very promising model of identification of at-risk children, young people and families and early
intervention is the creation of place-based collective impact “coalitions of schools and services” which
aim to identify young people at risk of homelessness and disengagement in school and intervene
quickly to divert them from those journeys.
This approach was first trialled in The Geelong Project (TGP) and has proven effective in diverting
young people from homelessness and keeping them engaged in school. TGP reports that during its
pilot phase, its intervention resulted in 100% of the young people identified at high risk of
homelessness and school disengagement remained engaged in school, increased engagement or
returned to school; and 100% of them retained or obtained safe sustainable accommodation. TGP
costs its model at $3,653 per family, with a massive saving to the community when compared to the
cost of homelessness and early school leaving.viii
Two other projects have now commenced, at Ryde and the Northern Beaches in Sydney, using this
schools-based youth homelessness identification and intervention model, but adapted to suit local
circumstances. We believe that the success of the “coalitions of schools and services” model warrants
further investment in this model by Governments around Australia.
We believe it would have particular application in Queensland where a strong schools-based approach
involving collaboration with local organisations and community groups could prove very effective.
Reconnect
A key concern in relation to young people experiencing family conflict is the threat to the Reconnect
program.
Response to the Queensland Housing Strategy Discussion Paper
Working Together for Better Housing and Sustainable Communities
page 18
The Federally-funded Reconnect program uses community-based early intervention services to assist
young people aged 12 to 18 years (and those aged 12-21 years who have recently arrived in Australia)
who are experiencing or at risk of homeless and their families. It assists young people stabilise their
living situation and improve their level of engagement with family, work, education, training and their
local community.
Reconnect provides counselling, group work, mediation and practical support to the whole family.
Reconnect providers also ‘buy in’ services to target individual needs of clients, such as specialised
mental health services.
Reconnect has been found to achieve significant positive outcomes for young people and their
families, particularly in terms of housing stability and family reconciliation.ix
The 102 Reconnect services around Australia have been placed in a vulnerable position by the Reform
of Federation process, which is considering the respective roles of the Commonwealth and State and
Territory Governments in housing and homelessness.x Time frames for this process are unclear.
Reconnect is the only homelessness program where the Commonwealth Government directly funds
service providers (rather than going through State Governments). Accordingly, it is uncertain which
level of government will be responsible for its ongoing operation and indeed whether it will continue
beyond its current funding period, which ends in June 2017.
This program is too valuable for its fate to be left uncertain.
Mission Australia calls on the Queensland Governments to exert pressure through the Housing
Ministers’ meeting and COAG for the Commonwealth Government to extend and guarantee the
continuation of the Reconnect program for another five years.
Other early intervention priorities
In addition to a focus on identifying children and young people at risk of homelessness, Mission
Australia believes that other key groups should be focus areas for the Queensland Government’s
response to homelessness.
People experiencing domestic and family violence.
DFV is the number one reason people seek help from a homeless service, particularly women and
children. Efforts to reduce DFV need to be drastically expanded including high quality education in
schools, broader public awareness, law and policing reforms, perpetrator programs and significant
efforts to boost gender equality.
People exiting state care.
A ‘zero tolerance’ approach should be adopted to people becoming homeless when they exit state
care including hospitals and drug and alcohol facilities, correction facilities, detention centres and
mental health institutions, as well as young people in the out of home care system. Supports need to
be provided to people well before they exit institutions. We believe the Queensland Government (and
those of all other states and territories) should be held accountable for these outcomes over the
medium term.
Response to the Queensland Housing Strategy Discussion Paper
Working Together for Better Housing and Sustainable Communities
page 19
People needing support to maintain their tenancy.
Helping someone keep their home is much more effective than responding to their increased needs
once they become homeless. Queensland services that help people at high risk of homelessness to
maintain their housing should be expanded. This includes providing tenancy support to people
experiencing mental illness or substance abuse issues, people with a disability and people in need of
financial counselling.
Effective responses for people who are experiencing homelessness
Homeless services must be tailored to the individual needs of the people that they serve and deliver
trauma informed care. Many people fall into multiple at-risk groups and closely coordinated ‘wraparound supports’ are needed to deal with the underlying causes of their homelessness. Services must
also be sensitive to the specific needs of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, those from
culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds and other at-risk groups.
When someone becomes homeless, there is both a social and economic case for acting early to assist
them to exit homelessness as soon as possible.
Scattered site Housing First models, where people have a secure long-term tenancy that provides a
solid foundation for wrap-around service provision, should be scaled up to reduce the incidences of
chronic homelessness.
Mission Australia’s 2015 Homelessness Action Planxi sets out in more detail our knowledge of effective
approaches in working with people experiencing homelessness to move towards independence. The
recommendations are summarised in this graphic:
Response to the Queensland Housing Strategy Discussion Paper
Working Together for Better Housing and Sustainable Communities
page 20
Roma House
Roma House is a 31 bed, non-exclusion, trauma-informed, temporary residential service
based in Spring Hill, Brisbane. It was developed to meet the needs of people experiencing
long-term homelessness that may have been banned or excluded from other options. It
provides intensive 24 hour support to enable residents to overcome challenges and move
into safe and sustainable housing. It is a duration-of-needs service, which means people are
able to reside at Roma House until a suitable sustainable housing option becomes available.
As a Trauma Informed service, the whole of house focus is on safety and connection. This is
in recognition and acknowledgement that the majority of people experiencing
homelessness have experienced complex trauma. It is this focus on safety and connection
which provides the building blocks to enable residents to move forward on their recovery
journey, and into sustainable housing outcomes.
Homelessness among ATSI people
Indigenous Australians are significantly overrepresented amongst those who experience
homelessness. In Queensland, ATSI people made up 24% of the homeless population in 2011 even
though they comprise only 4% of the general Queensland population. xii
Responses to homelessness with ATSI people need to recognise the impact of multi-dimensional
disadvantage over generations including as a result of dispossession and disconnection from land.
Indigenous people, governments and service delivery agencies should partner to solve the complex
problems around homelessness including poverty, disadvantage and the lack of appropriate housing.
Services working with such clients need culturally respectful practices.
Going Places
Mission Australia’s Going Places program in Cairns involved homeless outreach which
moved long-term homeless people into sustainable housing.
This program worked with significant numbers of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander
clients. For every $1 invested, the Government saved $5.10 in public services no longer
required. The savings reflect reduced need for crisis accommodation, incarceration, court
proceedings, police time, diversionary services, time in hospital, and participants being able
to support their own children amongst other benefits.
Overcrowding is a particular issue in some remote indigenous communities and regional centres,
causing unacceptable impacts including health, child protection and safety risks. 11% of Aboriginal and
Torres Strait Islander Queenslanders live in a dwelling that requires one or more additional bedrooms,
in comparison to 1.9% of non-indigenous Queenslanders.xiii Priority place-based investment is required
in housing supply and crisis and transitional accommodation. We have called for a further 4,200 new
Aboriginal owned and controlled homes in remote communities and regional centres across Australia.
Response to the Queensland Housing Strategy Discussion Paper
Working Together for Better Housing and Sustainable Communities
page 21
Homelessness funding
The rising rate of homelessness in Queensland cannot be addressed by the Queensland Government
alone. A particular threat is the end of the National Partnership Agreement on Homelessness, due for
June 2017.
Prevention and effective responses to homelessness depend on strong commitment and joint
leadership from Commonwealth, State and Territory Governments to deliver housing reform and longterm service funding.
Mission Australia’s Homelessness Policy argued that this commitment and leadership is best
articulated through a new national multi-year housing and homelessness agreement between the
Commonwealth and all State and Territory governments to replace the current National Affordable
Housing Agreement (NAHA); the National Partnership Agreement on Homelessness (NPAH); and the
National Partnership Agreement on Remote Indigenous Housing (NPARIH).
The new agreement should be developed through dialogue with clients, the not-for-profit sector
which is responsible for most service delivery, relevant industry sectors, researchers and other
experts. The new agreement should include national targets for reducing homelessness, including a
commitment to halve all homelessness by 2025, and halve youth homelessness by 2020.
We seek a national commitment to increased funding for housing and homelessness, guaranteed for
the next 5 years, to avoid the churn and disruption that has been a feature of recent short-term
funding extensions.
We call on the Queensland Government to advocate strongly to the Commonwealth Government to
commit to adequate and stable funding arrangements for housing and homelessness.
Measuring impact
Mission Australia is committed to understanding the outcomes for clients who receive our services, as
well as the overall impact we make in reaching our goal of reducing homelessness and strengthening
communities. For this reason, we have developed an outcome framework which works alongside the
mandatory data collection systems to help us understand our clients’ concerns and issues when they
enter our services as well as how they change over time.
The foundation of our data collection is a measure of wellbeing (the Personal Wellbeing Index [PWI])
which is a measure of life satisfaction as a whole and includes the domains of satisfaction with
standard of living, health, achievements, relationships, safety, being part of the community and future
security. We then further supplement this with service specific outcome measures.
This is being implemented across Mission Australia in 2015-16 program by program, to enable us to
report on outcomes and our impact against our strategic vision of reducing homelessness.
We suggest that the Queensland Housing Strategy include a commitment to an outcomes
measurement framework, to ensure that the Queensland Government can understand the difference
being achieved through its housing and homelessness expenditure.
Response to the Queensland Housing Strategy Discussion Paper
Working Together for Better Housing and Sustainable Communities
page 22
We would be happy to arrange a briefing on our impact measurement approach. Our Research Team
has found a high level of interest from other governments, as a practical means of ascertaining the
ongoing effectiveness of service delivery in achieving client outcomes.
Recommendations
We recommend that the Queensland Government:

commit to halving youth homelessness by 2020, and halving total homelessness by 2025;

increase the emphasis in the homelessness service system on early intervention approaches,
in recognition of its value for individuals and families and the long-run avoided costs in the
health, justice and other systems;

roll out the effective “coalitions of schools and services” model to areas with risk prevalence
of youth homelessness in Queensland;

exert pressure through the Housing Ministers’ meeting and COAG for the Commonwealth
Government to extend and guarantee the continuation of the Reconnect program for another
five years;

advocate strongly through Housing Ministers’ meetings and COAG to the Commonwealth
Government for it to commit to adequate and stable funding interjurisdictional arrangements
for housing and homelessness;

commit to priority place-based investment in new Aboriginal owned and controlled housing
and crisis and transitional accommodation to address overcrowding in remote communities
and regional centres across Queensland; and

commit to an outcomes measurement framework for its housing and homelessness programs.
Response to the Queensland Housing Strategy Discussion Paper
Working Together for Better Housing and Sustainable Communities
page 23
Conclusion
Thank you for the opportunity to contribute to the development of the Queensland Government’s
new Housing Strategy.
Mission Australia and Mission Australia Housing have a unique perspective on what works in service
delivery, program funding and relationships with partners and governments, because we operate in
every State and Territory, have over 1,500 partnerships with other organisations, deliver 589 programs
and services across Australia and deal with 41 government departments.
We would welcome further opportunities to share our learnings and perspectives and discuss the
issues raised in this submission with you. To arrange that, please feel free to contact the following:
Darren Young
State Director, Queensland and Northern Territory
e [email protected]
t 07 3394 8112
Chris Bratchford
Executive, Mission Australia Housing
e [email protected]
t 02 9219 2001
Marion Bennett
Head of Policy and Advocacy
e [email protected]
t 02 9288 0083
Response to the Queensland Housing Strategy Discussion Paper
Working Together for Better Housing and Sustainable Communities
page 24
Endnotes
i
See for example, Davison, G. et al. (2012) Affordable housing, urban renewal and planning: emerging
practice in Queensland, South Australia and New South Wales, AHURI Final Report No.195, Australian
Housing and Urban Research Institute. Accessed at
http://www.ahuri.edu.au/publications/download/ahuri_70691_fr
ii
https://www.missionaustralia.com.au/publications/position-statements/homelessness
iii
Ferrer E. (2014) The cost of increasing social and affordable housing supply in NSW, Shelter NSW. Accessed
at http://www.shelternsw.org.au/publications-new/policy-papers/financing-housing-supply/449-the-costof-increasing-social-and-affordable-housing-supply-in-new-south-wales/file
iv
https://www.missionaustralia.com.au/publications/research/homelessness
v
ABS (2012) Census of Population and Housing: Estimating homelessness, 2011, Australian Bureau of
Statistics. Accessed at
http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/[email protected]/PrimaryMainFeatures/2049.0?OpenDocument.
vi
MacKenzie, D., Flatau, P., Steen, A. and Thielking, M. (2016) The Cost of Youth Homelessness in Australia,
Swinburne University of Technology, University of Western Australia Centre for Social Impact and Charles
Sturt University. Accessed at http://www.csi.edu.au/research/project/cost-youth-homelessness-australiafinal-report/
vii
MacKenzie, D. and Chamberlain, C. (2003) Homeless careers: Pathways in and out of homelessness.
Swinburne and RMIT Universities. Accessed at
http://www.salvationarmy.org.au/salvwr/_assets/main/documents/reports/homeless_careers_2003.pdf
viii
The Geelong Project, accessed at http://www.thegeelongproject.com.au/
ix
Ryan, P. (2003) ‘I’m looking at the future’: Evaluation report of Reconnect, Canberra: Australian
Government Department of Family and Community Services.
x
Department of Social Services (2015) Housing support: National Partnership Agreement on Homelessness.
Accessed at https://www.dss.gov.au/housingsupport/programmes-services/nationalpartnershipagreement-on-homelessness
xi
https://www.missionaustralia.com.au/publications/position-statements/homelessness
xii
ABS (2011) Census of Population and Housing, 2011, Australian Bureau of Statistics. Accessed at
http://www.abs.gov.au/websitedbs/censushome.nsf/home/Census?opendocument&ref=topBar.
xiii
ABS (2016) National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Survey, Australia, 2014-15, Australian
Bureau of Statistics. Accessed at
http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/[email protected]/PrimaryMainFeatures/4714.0?OpenDocument.
Response to the Queensland Housing Strategy Discussion Paper
Working Together for Better Housing and Sustainable Communities
page 25