Funding The Great Australian Housing Scheme

A couple of days ago, I wrote an article titled, “How To Build 1,200,000 Homes In 5 Years”.

This was merely just my attempt to try and help Australia as we face a significant housing crisis at the moment.

We’ve got hundreds of thousands of people struggling to find affordable, secure accommodation, in fact there is information readily available to suggest we need to build 1.2 million homes.

To tackle this massive issue, I came up with a bold and innovative proposal.

My idea is to build 1.2 million identical homes over five years and here is the link to the original article: How To Build 1200000 Homes In 5 Years.

My very ambitious plan leverages huge economies of scale and standardized design to hopefully deliver affordable housing efficiently and cost-effectively, below is a summary of the project:

1.    Project Overview: Proposes building 1.2 million identical homes in Australia over five years to address the housing crisis, focusing on standardized design and economies of scale.

2.    Key Objectives: Rapidly increase housing supply, achieve cost savings, streamline construction, create affordable housing, and stimulate economic growth.

3.    Implementation Strategy: Centralized manufacturing, optimised supply chains, workforce development, and streamlined approvals. Funding through national investment, tax incentives, and government contributions.

4.    Location and Cost Analysis: Homes distributed across Tamworth, Narrabri, Wandoan, Sale, and Geraldton. Detailed cost estimates and infrastructure requirements for each location, with a total project cost of approximately $729 billion.

This approach aims to efficiently and cost-effectively tackle Australia’s housing shortage while fostering regional development and economic growth.

 1. We May Need to Undertake Some “Tough Measures”.

In The National Interest and to ensure the success of this transformative housing initiative, we may need to adopt some prudent and collective measures to optimise our resources and secure the necessary funding.

To address Australia’s unprecedented housing crisis and successfully deliver 1.2 million homes over five years, we must implement a series of decisive and potentially challenging measures.

While some of these actions may require short-term sacrifices, they are essential for achieving our long-term housing objectives.

The phrase “Tough Measures” and “The National Interest” seem to the be terms our leaders use to frame controversial policies and create a sense of urgency, so I think using it in this article is relevant.

In the context of Australia’s housing crisis, where we face the challenge of delivering 1.2 million homes over five years at my approximated cost of $729 billion on my original article, such language carries particular weight and responsibility.

1.1 Understanding the Language of “Tough Measures”.

Before outlining specific measures, it’s crucial to acknowledge that this terminology typically:

·        Serves as a political framing device to justify potentially controversial policies.

·        Creates a sense of collective responsibility and urgency.

·        Appeals to patriotic sentiment and national unity.

·        May be used to expedite policy implementation while potentially limiting public debate.

1.2 Balancing Urgency with Democratic Values.

Our housing crisis is no joke and neither is the very big problem we have got with far too many Australians being homeless.

It was and still is my hope that by addressing and fixing the housing situation, we could by default also do a lot in addressing the homeless situation.

To fix the housing crisis, the solutions will have to demand immediate action, but this urgency must be balanced against:

1.    The need for a transparent democratic process.

2.    Protection of civil liberties and individual rights.

3.    Consideration of impacts on marginalized communities.

4.    Maintaining channels for public debate and dissenting voices.

The last thing we would ever want to do is to hurt people when addressing a situation that is hurting people, 2 negatives don’t cancel out to be 1 positive.

1.3 Land Acquisition and Zoning Reform.

1.    Streamlined Compulsory Acquisition: Implement expedited processes for acquiring suitable land in identified development zones.

2.    Fast-Track Rezoning: Create special development zones with pre-approved residential zoning status.

3.    Agricultural Land Conversion: Establish clear criteria for converting suitable agricultural land to residential use where necessary.

4.    Compensation Framework: Develop fair compensation mechanisms for affected landowners.

1.4 Regulatory Changes.

1.    Building Code Modifications: Temporarily modify building codes to accommodate standardized design elements.

2.    Approval Fast-Track System: Create a centralized approval system for the standardized housing design.

3.    Environmental Assessment Streamlining: Develop simplified environmental impact assessment processes for pre-approved designs.

4.    Local Council Override Provisions: Establish federal mechanisms to override local planning restrictions when necessary.

1.5 Resource Allocation.

1.    Materials Priority System: Implement a national system prioritising building materials for the housing scheme.

2.    Workforce Mobilization: Create incentives for workers to relocate to development zones.

3.    Equipment Sharing Program: Establish a national construction equipment sharing network.

4.    Infrastructure Fast-Track: Prioritise essential infrastructure development in project areas.

1.6 Financial Measures.

1.    Special Purpose Entity: Create a dedicated financial entity to manage project funds.

2.    Tax Incentives: Implement tax benefits for participating businesses and contractors.

3.    Foreign Investment Framework: Develop specific guidelines for international investment in the project.

4.    Cost Control Mechanisms: Establish strict cost monitoring and control systems.

1.7 Social Considerations.

1.    Community Consultation Framework: Establish efficient but meaningful community consultation processes.

2.    Displacement Mitigation: Develop programs to assist any displaced residents or businesses.

3.    Local Business Integration: Create opportunities for local businesses to participate in the project.

4.    Social Infrastructure Planning: Ensure adequate provision of schools, healthcare, and community facilities.

1.8 Implementation Timeline.

1.    Phase 1 (Months 1-6): Regulatory framework establishment and initial land acquisition.

2.    Phase 2 (Months 7-12): Infrastructure development and supply chain setup.

3.    Phase 3 (Years 2-5): Full-scale construction and continuous optimisation.

These measures, while challenging, represent necessary steps to address Australia’s housing crisis effectively.

Their implementation requires strong political will, public support, and coordination across all levels of government.

However, even with these structural and regulatory frameworks in place, the success of this ambitious housing initiative hinges on securing adequate funding, approximately $729 billion over five years.

1.9 Transitioning from Framework to Funding.

Having established the broader context of the “tough measures” approach and its implications for democratic processes, we must now address perhaps the most challenging aspects of funding the project.

The following sections outline specific funding strategies that, while almost certainly controversial, align with what I’ve tried to establish as the framework for balanced yet decisive actions.

The first of these funding measures involves a significant restructuring of our national media landscape.

While this proposal may seem unexpected in the context of housing policy, it represents exactly the kind of bold, transformative thinking needed to address our housing crisis.

This approach hopefully demonstrates how we must sometimes look beyond conventional solutions to achieve extraordinary outcomes.

2. Restructuring Government-Owned Media Assets.

To generate substantial funding, the scheme proposes selling and restructuring government-owned media assets, aiming to raise approximately $3.5 billion. This innovative approach involves:

Sale of ABC and SBS: Selling the Australian Broadcasting Commission (ABC) and the Special Broadcasting Service (SBS) to a joint venture of channels 7, 9, and 10, including all associated radio stations and assets.

Transformation of ABC: Rebranding as the Australian Sports Channel (ASC), transitioning to a 24-hour sports network, and leveraging its main channel for popular sports to attract substantial advertising revenue.

Reimagining SBS: Maintaining its current branding but evolving into a 24-hour Reality & DIY TV channel, focusing on content that aligns with its new programming direction.

Impact on Commercial Channels: Creating opportunities for channels 7, 9, and 10 to develop more high-quality Australian TV shows and showcase top-tier British and American content.

2.1 Addressing What Will Be Some Public Interest Concerns.

My proposed sale of ABC and SBS represents one of our toughest measures, requiring honest acknowledgment of the real sacrifices involved.

While this decision would generate approximately $3.5 billion for urgent housing needs, I guess I must be clear about what this means for Australia’s media landscape:

2.1.1 What Would We Gain?

1.    Substantial funding toward addressing the housing crisis.

2.    Potential for more commercially viable sports and entertainment content.

3.    Reduced government expenditure on media services.

4.    Opportunity for commercial networks to expand their reach.

2.1.2 What Would We Have To Give Up?

1.    Fully independent public broadcasting services.

2.    Guaranteed political reporting without commercial influence.

3.    Some less commercially viable but culturally significant programming.

4.    Complete government control over emergency broadcasting.

2.1.3 Why Go Through This Trade-off?

I guess it comes down to Housing vs Broadcasting and I personally think that 1 homeless person in Australia is one too many and 1 family living in a tent due to no affordable housing being available is too many.

1.    The immediate need for housing affects hundreds of thousands of Australians.

2.    While public broadcasting is valuable (I suppose), shelter is far more a fundamental human need.

3.    The $3.5 billion could provide homes for thousands of families.

2.1.4 Commercial Reality.

I don’t think we could realistically expect commercial buyers to maintain all current public service obligations, they will need to run content that attracts advertisers.  In other words, they will need to shape their programming for commercial viability.

Attempting to impose too many conditions would significantly reduce the sale value and probably stop it from happening.

2.1.5 Priority Setting.

1.    In a time of crisis (A housing and homelessness crisis), surely we must prioritise our most pressing national needs.

2.    The double whammy of the housing and homelessness crisis represents a more immediate threat to Australian wellbeing.

3.    Some cultural and media services may need to be sacrificed for the greater good.

Losing the ABC and SBS in their current formats will be tough but I just cannot see how we could avoid some genuine sacrifices being made in service of addressing our critical housing shortage.

3. Optimising Australian Public Service Salaries.

Another strategy involves adjusting public service salaries to generate further funding:

1.    Salary Cap Implementation: Reducing salaries of public service roles that currently exceed the Prime Minister’s compensation, setting the new maximum at one dollar less than the Prime Minister’s salary.

2.    Projected Savings: Estimated annual savings of approximately $28 million, potentially freeing up around $140 million over the five-year period of the housing scheme.

4.0 Financial Impact.

Combining these strategies, the scheme could see a total projected contribution of approximately $3.61 billion over five years.

This influx of funds could significantly boost the project’s financial resources, potentially shortening construction timelines or broadening the scope of the housing initiative.

By combining these novel funding strategies, the Great Australian Housing Scheme can address the critical need for additional resources, ensuring the successful delivery of affordable housing to all Australians.

Strategic financial planning and collaborative efforts can help to strengthen the initiative’s foundation and prioritise affordable housing for all Australians.

This comprehensive approach not only addresses the housing crisis, but also revitalises the media landscape and optimises public-sector spending, resulting in a well-rounded and financially sound solution.