There are two big questions that will frame the event
- What’s the housing we want?
- How will get it?
Here’s your chance to submit the questions you might want to ask the panellists whether you’re in the audience in person on Thursday 26 of this month or not.
Following is a list of five priorities we want from housing, distilled from the national discourse on the crisis
- Affordable – both to rent and buy with special focus on social housing and for essential and creative workers and with options for young people, productive professionals and the over 55s
- Quality – minimum structural performance standards that last the distance in structure to protect against weather, fire, safety and acoustics
- Access – to social and economic services such as schools, medical facilities, retail and to jobs and other economic opportunities
- Connection to Country and People – the physical and mental health (and global heating resilience) promoted by nature amenities such as parks, waterways, street trees, urban cooling, walking, cycling, family friends and social life
- Planetary boundaries – Housing that minimises its footprint and integrates with a national landuse plan to provide for other human needs and those of nature and climate resilience.
Last week we sent a form to our readers to suggest questions for our amazing panellists announced so far. If you would like to ask your own questions you can find the form here
Following is a sample of the questions we received so far:
- To all panellists:
- When did housing start falling apart? [Check out what journalist Alan Kohler says in these two short videos that are well worth having a look and take a stab at the problem. Kohler says it’s 2000 when John Howard and Peter Costello halved the capital gains tax and the housing to income ration went from eight to four. And another video on the bounty enjoyed by the baby boomers.]
- Western Australia How should this problem be tackled? The Building and Energy (B&E) department in Western Australia, formerly known as the Building Commission, plays a crucial role in overseeing the construction industry. However, the department’s operational inefficiencies have led to mounting frustrations from both the public and industry professionals. A primary concern is the employment of administrators from unrelated government sectors, who often lack even the most basic knowledge of building or construction. This absence of relevant expertise forces both builders and the public into lengthy explanations just to ensure that simple enquiries are understood. The result is often inaction or delayed resolutions as administrators struggle to grasp the full scope of the issues presented to them. At the heart of these challenges is a disconnect between policy and practice. The department’s inspectors, many of whom are former police officers, operate with a mentality suited to law enforcement rather than construction oversight. While their background may be useful for enforcing regulations, it leads to a disproportionate focus on compliance through punitive measures. Builders find themselves treated like suspects on parole, presumed guilty until proven otherwise. This adversarial dynamic undermines the relationship between the government and the building industry, where a collaborative approach would be far more productive. Builders report that even routine questions can turn into hostile interrogations, creating a defensive mindset that limits open communication. The fear of self-incrimination or implicating others makes builders hesitant to fully disclose information, exacerbating misunderstandings and further delaying problem resolution. Instead of fostering an atmosphere of trust and collaboration, these interactions often devolve into confrontations, contributing to a pervasive sense of frustration. Compounding this issue is the use of imprecise language in the department’s policies. For instance, the word “building” appears frequently, where “construction” would be a more accurate term. The broader scope of construction includes not only the physical act of building but also planning, design, and project management, yet this distinction is often lost in B&E’s guidelines. The vague terminology opens the door to unnecessary and unproductive dialogue, with both parties struggling to align their understanding. There is a clear need for reform within B&E. A practical solution would be to employ individuals with actual industry experience, such as former builders, engineers, or site managers. These professionals would bring a wealth of practical knowledge that could streamline processes, foster more meaningful dialogue, and ultimately lead to faster and more accurate resolutions. Unfortunately, there appears to be reluctance from those in senior government positions to make such changes, possibly out of concern for maintaining bureaucratic control or due to a lack of understanding of the industry’s complexities. Until these issues are addressed, the disconnect between the government and the building industry is likely to persist, to the detriment of both sectors. In conclusion, the current structure of the B&E department in Western Australia is not suited to efficiently address the needs of the construction industry. The employment of non-specialist administrators and inspectors creates barriers that slow down processes and foster mistrust. A shift toward employing individuals with practical building experience would greatly benefit both the industry and the public, but this will require significant political will and institutional reform.
- Urban design might have a solution. To all panellist – with regards to this opening statement that “the housing crisis seems to be going from bad to extreme, there couldn’t be a better time to focus on solutions.” Is it a question more about Urban Design where the houses fit into this far wider landscape or fabric. For the vitality of living is in fact far more about neighbourhood than specific under the roof mentality. Surely we have had centuries of being able to put a good house design together and have exhausted that reality. What is the real question? We are very poor in creative vibrant living spaces in our Urban Design. That is where our focus needs to be. What models exist around the world that can lead us into better quality of living as communities rather than the myopic world of The House. Is this one ? https://impakter.com/quartier-vauban-tiny-town-big-sustainable-ambitions/ It is easy to design a vibrant house we have done that. How do we design a neighbourhood that thrives?
- Housing mobility – How do you swap housing from young divorcees to elderly needing to downsize or needing invalid status to exchange for something with no stairs? this is the case for my mother living in 2 bedroom, sister has left and married for 4 years, my mother now lives alone with 3x storey townhouse appropriate for a family but not for her. Noone is helping her move elsewhere to somewhere with people her age. She prefers if anything was done, it was not going to be in a ghetto with drug-traffickers. These buildings should have cameras and end the criminals, sprawling around capturing more young vulnerable kids into drugs
- Housing Co-ops How can we support community organisations like Housing Coops to develop housing they want more easily and quickly? Right now it is unresponsive and difficult to get such housing options up and running
- The Wild West – Hi Guys, not sure if there is someone presenting from the Wild West but endless/mindless sprawl continues unabated over here – except when the latest builder goes bust! (Read NicheLiving). Also most of the housing stock is crap – latest AHURI report makes depressing reading. Here at Murdoch Uni’s Env Eng program we’re keen to explore retrofitting existing McMansions for sustainability and increased occupancy. Any thoughts on this approach?
- Priorities missing in action Do you think a reason why the priority for real action on housing is not there is because governments believe their constituents are not interested in it? If so, is their assumption correct? If constituents are actually wanting the better provision of affordable housing then why is the government not listening or choosing not to listen?
- Quality of housing – Needs to be properly insulated for warmth, energy-saving and noise preventative between households. As you know, these ghettos have a lot of crime and swearing that other kids don’t need to hear through walls. Regular inspections should be conducted with police also, to check on children and elderly welfare, mostly as the most vulnerable
- What makes a home future proof? Is it at least or more than just Livable Housing features, condensation control and quality control throughout the build? What is this future world we are building for, and can we achieve this with a BAU workforce?
- Green space and multi res. Do multi-residential developments allow for and/or create enough genuinely useable green space. Whereby people are naturally drawn to be there and where they are naturally drawn to commune with others whether it’s neighbours or their visitors.
- The latest AHURI report on improving the building quality of housing, some of which the 2022 NCC changes would address, points out the power of the lobbyists in maintaining the status quo, and the lack of transparency in the way the ABCB developed the relevant RIS for the Livable Housing Design Standard. What needs to happen to balance the needs of the industry with the needs of the community – the people who use the housing infrastructure?
- Politicians How can we overcome the issue of politicians being swayed by industry anecdotes (at a lunch) and not actual research from reputable sources like universities? What needs to change?
- Vote winning – Without fear or favour – how can we make social and public housing a vote winner, not just more supply for homeowners?