Australia’s housing crisis is not the result of a single policy failure. It is the product of decades of underinvestment, short-term thinking and a persistent misunderstanding of what housing represents in a modern economy.
Spinifex is an opinion column. If you would like to contribute, contact us to ask for a detailed brief.
Too often, the debate about social housing is framed through the narrow lens of government expenditure: how much it costs, how many homes can be built, and whether it fits within competing budget priorities. The underlying assumption is that social housing is a welfare expense, a cost to be minimised.
That assumption is outdated and economically flawed.
The evidence is increasingly clear: social housing is infrastructure. Like transport, health and education infrastructure, it creates long-term economic value. It reduces future government costs, improves productivity, strengthens communities and provides the foundation upon which people can participate fully in society and the economy.
The return on investment is proven
In 2022, Housing All Australians partnered with SGS Economics and Planning to produce Give Me Shelter, one of the most comprehensive economic assessments of social and affordable housing undertaken in Australia.
Its central finding was compelling: for every dollar invested to enable the delivery of public, social and affordable housing, the Australian community receives approximately two dollars in economic and social benefits. A benefit cost ratio of 2:1 places social housing investment alongside, and in some cases ahead of, many major infrastructure projects traditionally viewed as essential economic investments.
The benefits extend well beyond the construction phase, encompassing reduced pressure on health services, improved educational outcomes, increased workforce participation, lower interaction with the justice system and stronger local economies.
International evidence reinforces the same conclusion
A major Canadian study examining public housing investment across the Greater Toronto and Hamilton Area modelled five investment pathways over 25 years. The strongest pathway – combining renewal of existing stock with significant new construction – generated a benefit cost ratio of 2.8:1, approximately $48 billion in cumulative social value, nearly $50 billion in cumulative GDP gains and more than 350,000 job-years of employment.
Different countries, different housing systems, different methodologies – yet the findings point unmistakably in the same direction.
The cost of doing nothing is far greater
The debate around social housing often focuses on the upfront investment required while ignoring the much larger cost of inaction. That cost is already being paid.
Give Me Shelter estimates that the accumulated costs associated with unmet housing need – across health, education, productivity and the justice system – could reach an additional $25 billion annually by 2052 in today’s dollars.
These are not theoretical costs. They represent the consequences of failing to provide stable housing: more people presenting to emergency departments, more pressure on homelessness services, disrupted education, reduced workforce participation and increased demand on government services.
The Canadian research reaches a similar conclusion. The lowest investment pathway resulted in declining housing capacity, significant loss of existing stock and a deeply negative economic outcome compared with higher investment scenarios.
The lesson is straightforward: governments do not avoid costs by failing to invest in housing. They simply pay those costs later, often at a higher price and through less effective interventions.
Housing is the foundation of better outcomes
Social housing is often described as a response to disadvantage. That description is incomplete.
Secure, appropriate housing is an enabler of health, education, employment and community stability.
When people have a safe and stable home, children are more likely to attend school consistently and achieve better educational outcomes. Adults are better able to maintain employment. Health improves because housing insecurity, overcrowding and homelessness are significant drivers of poor physical and mental health outcomes.
The Canadian research quantified these benefits. Compared with lower investment approaches, increased public housing investment reduced hospital admissions, emergency department visits and justice system interactions over the study period. It also reduced homelessness and generated billions of dollars in avoided government service costs and produced cumulative federal and provincial tax revenues nearly double those achieved under the expected funding scenario.
These outcomes are not accidental side effects. They are the direct return on the investment.
Social housing is not separate from health policy, productivity policy or economic policy. It is an intervention that delivers across all three.
Australia’s growing housing gap
Australia’s challenge is that demand has grown faster than supply.
As of June 2024, Australia had approximately 452,000 social housing dwellings across public housing, community housing and Indigenous housing programs. This includes around 298,000 public housing dwellings and 119,000 community housing dwellings.
Despite this, social housing represents only around 4 per cent of Australia’s total housing stock, a share that has declined significantly over recent decades as population growth has outpaced new supply.
The result is a widening gap between those who need secure, affordable housing and the available supply.
More than 160,000 Australians remain on social housing waiting lists, with many households waiting years for a suitable home. Behind every statistic is a person or family experiencing uncertainty, instability and the long-term consequences that flow from inadequate housing.
The pressure will not ease on its own. Without investment commensurate with the scale of the challenge, the waitlists lengthen, deferred costs will accumulate, and the economic drag will compound quietly across health, justice and productivity budgets.
The investment case must change
Recent commitments from governments at all levels represent progress and should be recognised. But acknowledging the problem is different from responding to it at the scale required.
Social housing should no longer compete for funding as though it were simply another social program, measured against other welfare expenditures and trimmed when budgets tighten. It should be assessed alongside roads, hospitals, schools and the other forms of productivity enhancing infrastructure that governments have long understood as non-negotiable foundations of a functioning economy.
Both research and the Canadian report, produced independently and separated by an ocean, reach the same conclusion with the same confidence: social housing is not a cost to be carried. It is an investment that delivers returns for generations.
The question is not whether Australia can afford to invest more in social housing. It is whether we can afford the consequences of continuing not to.
