Urban Report: Investigating PPPs for Social Infrastructure (Housing)

INVESTIGATING

PUBLIC PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS FOR AUSTRALIA’s SOCIAL HOUSING SYSTEM

Submitted by

Husna Begum M R 500241114 Master of Urbanism (URP)

Supervisor Xiao Ma

Unit Coordinator Ryan Michael Jones

ARCH 9092 Urban Report November 2021

I acknowledge the traditional custodians of the land on which the University of Sydney is located, and to the land where the research was conducted: the Gadigal people of the Eora Nation, the Cabrogal Clan of the Darug Nation, and Bunurong Boon Wurrung & Wurundjeri Woi Wurrung peoples of the Eastern Kulin Nation. I recognise their continuing connection to lands, water, and culture and the sustianably land management practices since thousands of years prior to colonisation.

Acknowledgement The completion of this report would not have been possible but for the support and guidance of many people. I am grateful to my superviosr Dr. Xiao Ma for her insightful and timely guidance, which helped conduct this research. I would also like to thank Dr Ryan Michale Jones, the unit coordinator of ARCH9092 and all the tutors for their delightful lectures, that helped me learn the research process.

I would like to extend my thanks to my friends and family who have always been their to support me at all time, and above all I am grateful to the ever ominipresent for keeping me in good health through this entire process.

TABLE OF CONTENTS 01 Introduction

6

02 Literature Review

8

1.1 Background 1.2 Research Justification 1.3 Research Aim & Objectives

2.1 2.2 2.3 2.3

Australian Social Housing System Public Private Partnerships (PPPs) Social Housing through Public Housing Renewal Conceptual Framework

03 Research Method 04 Data Analysis

4.1 Bonnyrigg Public Housing Estate, Sydney 4.2 Carlton Public Housing Estate, Melbourne

6 7 7

8 9 11 13

14 16

16 20

05 Discussions & Recommendations

25

06 Conclusion

31

Appendix Reference List

33 34

5.1 Comparative Analysis 5.2 Recommendations

25 29

Executive Summary The housing crisis in Australia is ever increasing, with inequitable demand for social housing. However, with the Australian social housing system in crisis, due to the decreasing capital funds from the government and increasing operational cost of social housing, the government is looking towards innovative partnerships with private players for their finance and services. The study is situated in this context of providing effective strategies for public-private collaboration to deliver social housing.

An extensive study of former Public-Private Partnerships (PPP) in Public Housing renewal projects is studied to draw insights for future collaborative social housing projects in Australia. The ‘Bonnyrigg Living Communities Project’ (BLCP) project from Sydney and ‘Carlton Public Housing Redevelopment’ (CPHR) from Melbourne, bring a diverse sample set of attributes for the case study analysis. The qualitative analysis of the policy framework and outcomes (physical, social) brings a detailed insight into the dynamics between the contrasting stakeholders in the partnership. However, through a comparative analysis of these case studies, the relation of the stakeholders to the outcomes is established.

Through the analysis varied form of risks introduced to the community through private stakeholder is understood. However, the study also finds effective strategies to be applied by the public sector to mitigate the risks. The critical review of the existing practices of public housing renewal manifested a ‘market-centric approach. Through qualitative and quantitative research methods, the study justifies updating the ‘social mix policy’ and ‘tenancy management’ framework to a ‘community centric’ approach. It also emphasises the importance of ongoing community engagement at all phases of the development. Through the analysis of the actors, outcomes, and practiced policies/framework, the research recommends effective strategies for future Australian social housing through public-private partnerships projects.

Key Words Public-Private Partnership, Social Housing, Public Housing Renewal, Social Mix Policy, Tenancy Managment, Community Engagement

01

INTRODUCTION 1.1 Background Access to adequate housing is recognised as a fundamental human right, the lack of which impacts other basic rights like the right to family, health, and wellbeing (Human Rights Commission 1996).

World Health Organisation (WHO) recognises living conditions as a crucial determinant for a community’s health (AIHW 2016). However, housing affordability has been deteriorating in Australia in the past few decades, with significant impact on the vulnerable communities the likes of low-income, first home buyers, immigrants, single parents, and so on (Neill 2008). To which the government’s response had varied over past decades depending upon the political and socio-economic scenario. In a broad context, the transition of the state’s housing policies from welfare to neoliberalism has resulted in an increasing drive for the private market collaboration in the social housing sector (Yates 2013). This study is situated in the context of understanding the implications of collaboration with private players through Public-Private Partnership (PPP) for private finance, service/infrastructure delivery, on Australia’s social housing sector. The study critically analyses the policy framework, physical, and social outcomes of former PPP projects for social housing, to provide recommendations for upcoming social housing projects that collaborate with non-public institutions.

Prior to further discussion, on the importance to study private sector collaboration in ‘social housing’, it is necessary to establish a common understanding of the terminologies - ‘social housing’, ‘public housing’, ‘affordable housing’, that are commonly found in the discipline. This common understanding would assist in distinguishing the type of place-based ‘social housing’ that has been focussed on in this research. Although, Milligan et al. (cited in Neill 2008) mention that there is no uniform definition for ‘affordable housing’ in the Australian context, with Gabriel et al. (cited in Neill 2008) adding that the term is interchangeably being used with ‘public’ or ‘social’ housing. However, for the purpose of this study, the term ‘social housing’ follows the Productivity Commission’s (cited in IPA 2008) definition, which encompasses all the subsidised rental housing in which the rent is pegged to the income of the tenants. This form of ‘social housing’ also includes ‘public housing’, which was historically provided by the state in form of estates during the welfare regime (Yates 2013). On the other hand, in ‘affordable housing’ the rents are pegged to the market, with additional rental assistance from the state to improve their accessibility towards housing.

6

Investigating PPP for Australian Social Housing

1.2 Research Justification Various intellectuals and practitioners in the Australian housing sector are comprehending the housing problem and proposing strategies to mitigate it (Conteh et al. 2016; Hooker 2014; Neill 2008).

A report from Infrastructure Partnerships Australia (IPA), suggests that the government’s response towards social housing would play a key role in improving housing affordability (IPA 2008). However, the Australian housing market is predominated by the private sector, with only 5% of the total housing stock supplied as ‘social housing’ (Yates 2013). It is well acknowledged that this resource-intensive task of supplying social housing, is unrealistic with sole reliance on the government’s limited budget and requires private finance contribution (Hooker 2014; IPA 2008). On contrary, the present Australian social housing market is dominated by the government, with less than 1% of the contribution from institutional finance (Conteh et al. 2016). However, peak industry body reports, identify the ability of the private sector to deliver social housing, with it still being an under-utilised asset class for PPPs (IPA 2008). In addition, the recent ten-year NSW social housing strategy- ‘Future Directions for Social Housing in NSW’, had prioritised to transform the social housing system through innovative partnerships with the non-public sector (NSW 2016). The social housing system in Australia is situated at the crossroads of transforming itself with innovative partnerships and institutional investments. To facilitate a successful transition, it is imperative to anticipate the barriers and assess the challenges for the stakeholders in the partnership.

1.3 Research Aim & Objectives While the participation of the private sector in the social housing market is an inevitable necessity of contemporary financial and infrastructure demands, it is imperative to understand its influence.

This study takes an approach of theoretical application on an empirical investigation of former ‘public housing’ renewal projects that were redeveloped through the PPP model. It aims to analyse the former projects to draw recommendations for future ventures. The research aims and objectives are set forth as outlined below:

PAST

What are the physical and social outcomes of the former public housing PPP renewal in Australia?

What policy framework enabled the former public housing PPP renewal in Australia?

FUTURE

“What are the effective strategies for public-private partnerships in Australian social housing?”

How to improve the future process for better outcomes?

Was the policy framework the optimal approach? How could the policy framework be improved?

Investigating PPP for Australian Social Housing

7

02

LITERATURE REVIEW 2.1 Australian Social Housing System Housing Unaffordability Debates Scholarly attempts to comprehend housing unaffordability can be broadly classified as discourse over demand and supply issues (Gittins 2018; Murray 2020; Neill 2008; Rose 2017). The acclaimed ‘constrained supply theory’ prevalent in the Australian academic discussions, considers the insufficient supply of housing as the key factor towards housing unaffordability. However, the contemporary research of Murray (2020) has disputed this theory with the demonstrated trend of housing supply exceeding demand since 2008. However, the dispute when analysed with the ‘demand theory’ presents a perspective over considering demand-supply balance across various housing sub-markets the likes of like low-income groups, students, and so on. Additionally, evidence suggesting an inequitable impact of housing price inflation on disadvantaged households (low-income, single women, retired people, disabled) can be argued as an affirming argument to increase the social housing supply (Neill 2008; Rose 2017). This resource-intensive task of ensuring adequate housing supply to all sections of society is observed across the hierarchy of government (Neill 2008; IPA 2008). However, the varying response of the government with the transition to neoliberal policies has further affected the disadvantaged households to procure adequate housing (Neill 2008).

Transitioning Social Housing Policy

A brief historical analysis of social housing policy in Australia, through the transition of the state from welfare to neoliberalism policies, witnesses a reduction in state’s capital assistance for social housing (supply side), with increasing dependence on the private sector (Yates 2013). The effect of budget constraints can be reflected in the growing waitlist of people for social housing and gradual residualisation of the mass existing public housing due to inadequate operational cost (Barnes et al. 2021; Yates 2013). A report from the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (cited in Walker & Wen 2008) indicated that crisis in the public and social housing system of Australia with a contribution of only 5% to the total housing stock (Yates 2013). However, with the reforms of the early 21st century, housing policy took the stage in the national agenda as social policy. Federal initiatives like National Rental Affordability Scheme (NRAS), Housing Affordability Fund (NRAS) were introduced to increase the supply of social housing stock.

8

Investigating PPP for Australian Social Housing

Towards Innovative Partnerships

While the initiatives, increased the supply of social housing stock, the system is clearly dominated by public sector financing, with missing large-scale institutional investors (Hooker 2014). The prevailing efforts to attract private finance is limited to strategies like transfer of assets to community housing providers (CHPs) for their access to private finance through commercial borrowing, tax concessions, grants, and subsidies which in turn to be used for operations and expansion of the social housing stock (Conteh et al. 2016; Yates 2013). A report by the infrastructure peak industry body of Australia suggests that the model is unsustainable due to acute mismatch between demand and supply with dependence on government funds alone could not address the proportion of demand in the social housing sector (Conteh et al. 2016; IPA 2008; Walker & Wen 2008).

Although international counterparts like UK and USA have been successful with expanding institutional investors, the major players in the Australian social housing sector are the Federal, state, and local governments with only 1% investment from institutional investors (Conteh et al. 2016). To maintain the financial viability of the social housing sector, numerous reports have suggested innovative financing strategies. A report from Australia’s infrastructure peak industry body proposes a collaborative approach to attract large investors with a mix of public, private, and non-profit organisations (Conteh et al. 2016; Hooker 2014; IPA 2008). The report reinforces the capability of the private sector to deliver social housing and states the potential of social housing to be utilized as an asset class for public-private partnership (PPP) (IPA 2008).

2.2 Public Private Partnerships (PPPs) PPPs in Australia A theoretical understanding of ‘Public-Private Partnership’ (PPP) could involve different arrangements of public-private collaboration, over private finance, public infrastructure/service delivery. However, a broad classification of PPPs based on outcome could be ‘policy/programme based’, which is commonly observed for international development, or ‘project/contract based’ through which public infrastructure/service is delivered (Bianchi et al. 2017; Yescombe 2007). PPPs as a strategy for institutional investment in social housing could be argued as a ‘project/contract based’ model, which is the focus of this research.

Debates on the merits and demerits of PPPs demonstrate the preference of the model for its ability to mitigate the constraints in public sector funding. Although the financing cost is typically 2-3% p.a higher than public sector funding, its potential to add value to public money through risk transfer, cost efficiency, time over-runs reduction, has manifested to be a reasonable argument for PPP in social housing (IPA 2008; Yescombe 2007).

While Australia’s PPP for infrastructure is one of the most matured markets in the world, with established institutions like Infrastructure Australia, Infrastructure NSW, and national policies/guidelines to Investigating PPP for Australian Social Housing

9

provide a framework for structured funding and procurement (Hooker 2014; Pinnegar et al. 2011). It is to be noted that the established PPP framework is sophisticated for ‘economic infrastructure’ the likes of transportation and still nascent for ‘social infrastructure’ like social housing. A PPP framework for ‘social infrastructure’ is fundamentally different from ‘economic infrastructure’ with additional consideration of social outcomes (Hooker 2014).

Debates on Private Sector A fundamental shift of ‘social housing’ towards private market solutions establishes the basis to analyse the effect of ‘privatisation’ on the system. Although the involvement of private players is historically viewed as ‘privatisation’, Linneman and Megbolugbe (cited in Drakeford 2014) restrict the application of the ‘privatisation’ term, to the model in which the government sells the public assets and distances its responsibility. While the model in which government ‘empowers’ private sector, as in the likes of a PPP, through finance and outsourcing of public services for their efficiency and good quality is viewed as ‘marketisation’.

Despite the form of privatisation, the concerns of involving private players in social housing delivery are widely discussed in scholarly literature. Firstly, Colenutt (2020) argues the dependency of the housing system on private finance, may potentially overwhelm housing policy with financialisation, and diminish the true spirit of social housing through escalating control of investors. Adding to it, Drakeford (2014) suggests the potential exposure of the social housing system to the uncertainties of financial market fluctuations. Secondly, the willingness of the private players to account for ‘externalities’ like social and economic benefits to the community is questionable (Colenutt 2020; Yescombe 2007). Thirdly, the established approach of securing private finance through sales of public assets is widely criticised as an unsustainable practice in social housing management (Christophers 2018; Colenutt 2020).

Role of State The state’s pivotal role in stabilising the partnership, and accounting for ‘externalities’ cannot be undermined. The involvement of the public sector, to account for ‘externalities’ by bridging the market gap and ensuring ‘efficiency & equity’, establishes endurance in the partnership (Conteh et al. 2016; Yescombe 2007). Involvement of institutional investments is only a supplement to the attempt of all stakeholders, like enabling conducive conditions by the government (Gilmour et al. 2010). Analysing the reasons for the limited involvement of institutional investors adds further insights to this argument. The stated common concerns by institutional investors, which involve ‘unstable policies, frameworks, systems, speculated risks on commercial returns by working with institutions of social motives high management cost and poor tenancy management’, could be argued as deficiency of the government in facilitating a conducive environment for engagement. The argument justifies the inevitable role of government in accounting for the ‘externalities’ and enabling favorable conditions to establish PPP in social housing (Conteh et al. 2016).

10

Investigating PPP for Australian Social Housing

Partnerships

Partnerships among stakeholders with contrasting attributes, the likes of PPP for social housing, necessitate the establishment of “trust, willingness, and power” in the early phase to achieve desirable outcomes. A common vision achieved in the early phases through mutual agreement and ‘negotiation’ of guidelines among stakeholders lies the foundation of ‘trust’. In addition, the ‘willingness’ of the public/private agents to share decision-making ‘power’ with the community making is central to the development process (Walker & Wen 2008). ‘Arnstein’s ladder of citizen participation’ with its classification of citizen power could provide the framework to evaluate the degree of ‘power’ sharing with the community. Although Figure 1 exhibits the detailed model, the three broad categories of citizen control are: ‘non-participation where the powerholders ‘educate’ the community, ‘degree of tokenism’ corresponds to the situation where citizen’s view is heard but lacks assurance of application, and ‘degree of citizen power’ where the citizen has decision making and management control (Arnstein 2019).

Citizen inititated Citizen holds responsibility and accountability Negotitations and decision-making Selected members in decision making Meetings, survey so on, but no assurance of application One-way communication, with no feedback Educate/Cure the partcipants Rubber stamp advisory board Figure 1: Arnstein’s (2019) eight rungs of citizen participation (Arnstein 2019) Edited by: (Author 2021)

2.3 Social Housing through Public Housing Renewal Australian Public Housing Transition Public housing in Australia was widespread during the decades following post-war, with nearly 650,000 houses built by the Australian states and territories. However, the public estates at present are largely ‘residualised’ and notorious for the concentration of the disadvantage (Yates 2013). An analysis of the social policy through the period accounts for the present condition of these estates. Public housing that was initially constructed for the returning servicemen families, with rental rebates only for those Investigating PPP for Australian Social Housing

11

households whose rental expenditure exceeded 20% of their income, in the 1970s transformed to estates reserved only for low-income households leading to the concentration of the disadvantage.

This income eligibility policy which reduced the rental revenue, and decline in federal government’s capital assistance, disintegrated the financial sustainability of the system (Pawson & Pinnegar 2018).

Financial constraints in public housing asset maintenance along with the concentration of the disadvantage formed the basis for the public housing renewal through private finance to promote ‘social mix’ (IPA 2008; Yates 2013).

Contemporary Social Mix policy

While addressing the concerns of past public housing policies, built the foundation of contemporary public housing policies in Australia. The practised strategy of ‘social mix’ to reduce disadvantage had apparently been imported from other high-income countries like US and UK, with little to no adaptation to the Australian context (Pawson & Pinnegar 2018). The deconcentration of disadvantage through ‘social mix’ is mainly carried out through either ‘dispersion’ or ‘dilution’ approach. Although, ‘dispersion’ of disadvantage from the estate through sales of housing in the private market decreased the concentration, Darcy (cited in Pawson & Pinnegar 2018) argues that the dispersed population still faced disadvantages in the new locality with the process only making it less politically visible. On the other hand, the ‘dilution’ approach carried out through ‘mixed tenure’ redevelopment is highly debated for lack of rational evidence. Pawson & Pinnegar (2018), demonstrate the widely practiced tenure mix formula of 70% private and 30% public, has no theoretical evidence but has only been practically used in NSW public housing redevelopment practice since the early 2000s (Darcy & Rogers 2019). While the practised ‘social mix’ policy lacked evidence base with Glaster (cited in Darcy & Rogers 2019, p. 3), the most renowned contributor in the discipline describing the term as “an intrinsically vague, slippery term”, analytical frameworks exist that attempt to evaluate the policy. The three dimensions of ‘social mix’ as identified by Tunstall and Fenton (cited in Darcy & Rogers 2019) namely the ‘composition, concentration, and scale’ provide a framework for critical analysis of the policy. Arthurson et al. (cited in Darcy & Rogers 2019) identify that ‘composition’ of social mix in Australian policy discourse is mainly reduced to mixed tenure, with this limited view failing to consider age, culture, education, and income. Secondly, the ‘concentration’ of the social mix could vary depending upon the location and ‘scale’ context. The author draws attention to consider the ‘scale’ of intervention, with Darcy (cited in Darcy & Rogers 2019) adding to the argument that the existing practice of considering the site boundary may not be the optimal spatial level to measure ‘social mix’ as it overlooks existing social networks (Darcy & Rogers 2019).

A critical perspective towards ‘social mix’ policy, views it as a strategy for ‘state-sponsored gentrification’, where the middle class is invited into the area of disadvantage to boost local taxes (Pawson & Pinnegar 2018; Pinnegar 2013). Adding to the argument, Pinnegar et al. (2013), demonstrates private dwelling in the renewed housing being predominantly purchased by investor landlords for the private rental market, instead of being used by private owners, facilitating capital accumulation rather than intended mixed social outcome (Darcy & Rogers 2019; Pawson & Pinnegar 2018).

12

Investigating PPP for Australian Social Housing

Public Housing Community

While investigating public housing renewal, understanding the needs and characteristics of the public housing community is an indispensable necessity. Owing to the concentration of the disadvantage in these housing, it can be argued that the characteristics of tenants here are distinct with high vulnerability to various risks. Firstly, the limited experience of the tenants in the decision-making process necessitates additional support and education to enable their participation (Pinnegar et al. 2011).

Secondly, the renewal process in these established communities puts them at higher risk of disrupted social networks and loss of sense of place. Thirdly, the renewal process has the potential to affect mental health, due to the stress associated with the relocation process. Lastly, to ensure lasting benefits of the renewal process, an appropriate exit plan with a clear delegation of responsibilities to the relevant organisation is to be outlined (Eastgate 2014). To ensure legitimacy in the process with reinforcement of democratic values, participation and engagement are to be initiated since the initial phase of the process (Barnes et al. 2021).

2.4 Conceptual Framework The theoretical framework outlined through the literature review provides the foundation of the conceptual framework applied in the research. The theoretical understanding of the social housing system in Australia underpins the importance of public-private collaboration for its sustainable growth.

The theoretical framework further progresses to provide insights on two major components of this research, namely the Public-Private Partnership (PPP) and Place-Based Social Housing i.e, the public housing system, which provides the conceptual framework for the data analysis. It can be argued that the theoretical understanding of these components furnishes insights on the Actors (Public-Private Partners) and the Place (Public Housing), which constitutes the foundation of this research.

The theory has individually analysed the characteristics and the roles of the Actors, in addition to providing insights on the forces that constitute partnership among the stakeholders. It could be observed that the actors constituting the partnership have contrasting attributes, however, the appropriate strategies while forming the partnership have the potential to not only mitigate friction but also provide benefits to the project. Moving further, the theoretical framework of Place has accounted for its historical evolution providing a basis to comprehend its present state. It has also provided a foundation to critically analyse the contemporary social mix policy which has been commonly applied for its renewal. Lastly, a comprehensive understanding of the community which constitutes the most significant component of Place provides the basis to analyse the influence of the Actors.

While the conceptual framework, provides the basis to understand the Actors and their influence on the Place, it should be noted that this research limits the understanding of influence to its physical, social, and economic outcomes as discussed in the theoretical framework, and does not account for other attributes like environment, which could potentially be the future scope of this research.

Investigating PPP for Australian Social Housing

13

03

RESEARCH METHOD The research approaches the research question in two stages (observations from past and lessons for future), to obtain recommendations for Public-Private Partnership in the Australian Social Housing System. However, it is to be noted that the established analytical framework, through the comprehensive review of scholarly articles in the preceding literature review section, forms the foundational basis for analyzing both these stages.

A case study approach, of two contrasting ‘social housing through public housing renewal’ projects in Australia has been employed at both stages. The selection of ‘Bonnyrigg Public Housing Estate Renewal, Sydney and ‘Carlton Public Housing Redevelopment, Melbourne’ for their varied PPP structure, project size (81-hectare vs 7.5-hectare), location (inner vs outer suburb), is attempt to include diverse attributes in the study sample set. However, it is to be noted that attribute of a similar timeframe (through the Global Financial Crisis), justifies the rationale to study both these cases simultaneously (Stubbs et al. 2005, 2017). Although the case study method generates detailed data for analysis, which is vital to understand the influence of the ‘Actors’ on the ‘Place’ outcomes, however, it is to be noted that it introduces limitations like excluding the attributes that are unfound in the selected case studies.

Stage one of the data analysis employs a qualitative observation of both the selected case studies individually. The data collected from varied secondary sources including, baseline & longitudinal surveys, contracts, thesis, journal articles, conference proceedings, government, industry & academic reports, have been organised to understand the project context, the relation between the ‘Actors’ (policy framework, contract) and outcomes (physical, social & economic) of the ‘Place’. Although, the secondary sources have provided detailed insights, it may carry the limitations, biases that were inherent with the data. The table in the Appendix, provides an overview of different data sources with their possible limitations/biases.

Stage two of the data analysis employs a comparative analysis approach through a mix of qualitative and quantitative research methods. While stage one of the analysis provides insight on ‘Actors’ and ‘Place’, the comparative analysis provides the opportunity to introduce context and relate the 14

Investigating PPP for Australian Social Housing

dynamics between the ‘Actors’ to the outcome of the ‘Place’. The established analytical framework has been meticulously followed as the standard for comparison and as a strategy to avoid biases from the researcher.

While most of the comparative analyses have been done qualitatively, the outcome of the policy framework has been compared quantitatively. The quantitative research method to compare the outcome of ‘social mix’ policy has used data from ‘Counting Dwelling, Place of Enumeration’ database of ABS (2016) to find the proportion of social housing ‘Landlord’ (State + Housing Cooperative) within the mesh block (MB) geographical level. Although, ‘social mix’ could imply a mix of different attributes, the ‘landlord’ type has been chosen, as ‘social mix’ is practiced as tenure mix in the Australian context (Darcy & Rogers 2019). Although, mesh block (MB) as the spatial level is employed to study social mix at a detailed level, the use of ABS (2016) data, limits the understanding until the project’s completed stages by the year 2016.

Getis-Ord gi* algorithm has been employed to analyse the concentration of social housing at the selected scale (estate scale) using the open-source qgis software. The algorithm is chosen for its ability to consider the ‘context’, and account for continuing ‘social networks’. While the excerpt below explains the algorithm statistically, a simpler understanding would be, it considers a mesh block to be a hotspot for social housing if the MB has a high concentration of social housing and is also surrounded by highly concentrated MB. Although, the algorithm through the plugin in qgis supports identifying hotspots, it provides limited user control in modifying the threshold of high concentration.

How Hot Spot Analysis (Getis-Ord Gi*) works?

The Getis-Ord Gi* (pronounced G-i-star) statistical analysis considers the null hypothesis of complete spatial randomness (CSR) (i.e., all the attributes of high concentration are randomly spatially dispersed). The analysis returns z-score (standard deviation, as in Figure 2) and p-values (probability) or each attribute (i.e., mesh block).

When an attribute with high z-score ( i.e., high concentration), low p-value (rejecting the null hypothesis), then it is considered as a hot spot (ArcGIS Pro 2021).

Figure 2: Calculation of z-score (standard deviation) (ArcGIS Pro 2021)

Investigating PPP for Australian Social Housing

15

04

DATA ANALYSIS 4.1 Bonnyrigg Public Housing Estate, Sydney 4.1.1 Context The 81-hectare Bonnyrigg estate located 30 km west of Sydney CBD lies in the suburb of Bonnyrigg under the jurisdiction of Fairfield Local Government Area (LGA). The estate is bounded by Bonnyrigg

Bonnyrigg Heights

Bo nn yri gg Av en ue

Avenue, Cabramatta Road, Edensor Road, and Elizabeth Drive and is surrounded by the residential suburbs as shown in Map 1 (Brown 2007; Rogers 2013). On a regional scale the suburb is within the key growth area of the Metropolitan Sydney and well connected to Liverpool (7 km) and Parramatta (17 km), which are identified as the ‘Growth Cities’ in Greater Sydney’s Strategic Plans (GSC 2016).

Eliz abe th

Ed en so r

Canley Heights Ro ad

Dri ve Cabramatta Road

Bonnyrigg Public Housing Estate Map 1: Neighbourhood Map of Bonnyrigg Public Housing Estate (My Maps 2021) Created by: (Author 2021)

Prior to redevelopment, the estate was largely a mono-tenure, low-density neighborhood and served as an entry point for migrants from 1981 to 2001 (Pinnegar 2013; Rogers 2013). The estate viewed as a concentration of the ‘disadvantage’ was home to 3,300 as per ABS (2001), characterised by low-income households, higher unemployment, and younger age group residents. It comprised of people from diverse backgrounds, with Vietnamese (26%) forming the second largest ethnic group after English (30%) and nearly 43% of residents struggling with speaking English. It consisted of 927 dwellings, with 828 social housing (public housing: 812, Community Housing Provider (CHP): 11, Aboriginal Housing: 12) and 99 dwellings belonging to private owners (Brown 2007; Stubbs et al. 2005).

16

Investigating PPP for Australian Social Housing

4.1.2 Policy Framework The past social policies that degenerated the public housing system (as discussed in section 2.3), formed the impetus for Bonnyrigg public housing estate renewal. Concerns with ‘asset management’ of aging stock, ‘financial constraints’ for operations, and ‘social issues’ with a concentration of ‘disadvantage’, formed the basis to apply ‘social mix’ policy (Pinnegar 2013; Rogers 2013).

Through the 1990s the estate witnessed the enactment of the ‘social mix’ policy through sales of public housing in the private market, resulting in the loss of nearly 100 dwellings by the early 2000s (CFRC 2013). The unsustainable practice of social mix through sales of public assets, along with the unfavorable ‘Radburn’ layout, which separated vehicular/pedestrian pathways creating communal spaces that promoted anti-social activities, formed the basis for ‘social mix’ policy through complete estate mixed-tenure redevelopment. The renewal project under the ‘Living Communities Program’, which later came to be known as ‘Communities Plus’, promoted integrated (physical and social) estate renewal through an innovative partnership between public, private, not for profit, residents (Barnes et al. 2021; Stubbs et al. 2005).

To enable the redevelopment policy framework across the tier of governments was observed. Although the Australian planning system lies with state and local government, the ‘Social and Affordable Housing Fund’ program from the Commonwealth was key to the development in the later stages of the project (Barnes et al. 2021). In addition, the declaration of the project as ‘state significant’, enabled a ‘regional scale’ urban policy with direct approvals from state government, overriding local government planning regulations (Rogers 2013).

4.1.3 Contract Following the announcement of the A$733 million ‘Bonnyrigg Living Communities Project’ (BLCP) in December 2004 by NSW Housing Minister (Rogers 2013), prospectus partners were evaluated based on project vision until the finalisation of the PPP contract in December 2006. A single contract between the NSW government and the private consortium (actors one to four in Table 1) set forth the terms for integrated redevelopment through 18 stages spanning over 14 years as shown in the Map-2 (Brown 2007).

12

6 1

13 16 18

17

2 4

14 15

7

3

5

11

6 8

9

10

Map 2: 18 stages of Bonnyrigg Living Communities Project (Rogers 2013)

Investigating PPP for Australian Social Housing

17

However, it is to be noted that the PPP framework dissolved in 2013 during stage 4 of the project, with the project being transferred to NSW Land and Housing Corporation (SGCH 2014).

BLCP’s aim and objectives that defined ‘integrated renewal’ (physical and social), was drawn through community consultation by the NSW government since 2004. The redevelopment through ‘social mix’ aimed to reduce the concentration of public housing from 90% to 30%, setting the target of 833 public housing and 1600 privately owned dwellings (Brown 2007; Stubbs et al. 2005).

An overview of the public-private actors in PPP is provided below: S No 1 2 3

ACTORS Becton Property Group Westpac

4

St George Community Housing Spotless Group

5

NSW Government

ROLE Property developer for overall project management, planning, design, and construction Financial institution to raise finance for physical and social objectives CHP for social housing tenancy management until end of project in 2037 Facility management of all public housing and common spaces Facilitate contract guidelines, development application review in each stage.

AFFILIATION Private Private Not for Profit Private Public

Table 1: Public-Private Actors in Bonnyrigg Living Communities Project (Brown 2007) Compiled by (Author 2021)

The financial arrangement included private sector finance for demolition, construction of all social housing in addition to community spaces and private dwellings, with NSW LAHC acquiring a portion of the profits from private units’ sales. However, LAHC is to provide a performance-based fee to the private sector for ‘tenancy management’, ‘relocation’, ‘communications’, and ‘community renewal’ (Brown 2007).

The implementation of the PPP was guided through the BLCP master plan prepared by Urbis, which outlined the responsibilities for each stakeholder in the private consortium, along with following the LAHC’s concept plan to prepare guidelines for the public/private realm (Landcom 2021; Rogers, 2013; Urbis 2008).

4.1.4 Outcomes Built Environment

The development witnessed a decrease in lot size and an increase in safety and density. Although the baseline study revealed residents’ concerns on the lot size, the infeasibility of large plots in modern times was acknowledged (Stubbs et al. 2005). In addition, longitudinal study shows satisfaction with interiors, with it being larger than expected and providing a better sense of security. An increase in sense of safety with improvement in ‘Radburn’ layout was also reported in the survey (CFRC 2013).

18

Investigating PPP for Australian Social Housing

‘Externalities’ like the housing market conditions, increased the development density through the stages. In 2012, after stage 3, the total number of dwellings increased from 2,332 to approximately 2,500 to compensate for the market failure of the quadplex model (Harvey & Barry 2017). The increase in apartment height from three stories in stage three to four to six stories in later stages exemplifies the changing density. However, through the changes, the ratio of public to private housing (30:70) was maintained (CFRC 2013).

Tenancy Management

Social housing tenancy management by CHP received overall positive feedback for maintenance and relocation, with some reporting them to be ‘professional’. However, some complaints were cited during the relocation phase, which mainly belonged to the cohort who decided to move out permanently from the estate (CFRC 2013). However, Pinnegar (2013) argues that these complaints are due to the fast track of relocation from previously planned stage-wise to relocation of this cohort at the beginning, leading to a stressful experience. Nevertheless, this cohort reported general satisfaction with the housing options shown to them before finalising. For those who remained, the strategy of staged relocation within the estate protected the social networks, but the process of multiple relocations was a stressful experience especially to the older population (CFRC 2013).

Community Engagement

The point of communication with the community evolved through different phases of the project.

Before the PPP contract came into effect, the government, in an attempt to make the community an equal partner in the process, instituted a ‘Community Reference Group’, initially open to all public and private housing residents, it also commissioned the baseline survey, which informed the aims and objectives of the BLCP (Brown 2007; Stubbs et al. 2005; Rogers 2011, 2012).

Additionally, a textual analysis by Rogers (2011) of documents published during this phase, demonstrates the level of engagement by the state with the community and private sector (as shown in Table 2). However, it is to be noted that the community was not involved in negotiations with the private consortium (Rogers 2011).

DOCUMENT

AUDIENCE

PPP Fact Sheet

Residents

BLCP Fact Sheet

Private Consortium

Expression of Interest (EOI)

Private Consortium

LEVEL OF ENGAGEMENT ‘Information’ on benefits of PPP ‘Information’ on benefits of PPP Guidelines, governance structure

Table 2: Level of engagement with community and private stakeholders at initial phase (Rogers 2011) Compiled by (Author 2021)

With the effect of the PPP contract, the private consortium held the primary responsibility of community engagement (Rogers 2012). The relocation phase has overall been cited as ‘professional’; however, some reports mention a misconception over pet policy, resulting in tenants moving out permanently (CFRC 2013). During the design phase, a series of workshops with translators were conducted, 19 Investigating PPP for Australian Social Housing

in addition to the consultation process being spread over a period with innovative themes to enable a better decision-making process (Rogers 2011).

However, ongoing community engagement particularly criticism in the year 2012, for lack of communication channel to raise concerns associated with the project delay in that year. While transiting into the delivery phase, engagement was limited to newsletters (in preferred language with audio CD) and monthly coffee meetups that updated the residents on the project’s progress (CFRC 2013; Pinnegar 2013).

Social Mix

A staged development, which tenure mix at stage could be argued as a strategy that evenly spreads social housing throughout the estate, avoiding concentrating at one area (SGCH 2021). But the longitudinal survey reveals minimal mixed-tenure interaction due to language issues or busy schedules.

Interestingly, some private renters/owners claim a lack of awareness on mixed tenure redevelopment (CFRC 2013).

Economic

External economic conditions affected BLCP, with the eventual dissolution of PPP. The market failure of the quadplex housing model in stage 1, along with the effect of the Global financial crisis (GFC), resulted in the withdrawal of Becton Property Group, leading to the dissolution of PPP in 2013 during stage 4 of the redevelopment (CFRC 2013; SGCH 2014).

4.2 Carlton Public Housing Estate, Melbourne 4.2.1 Context The 7.5-hectare Carlton Public Housing Estate located 2kms north of Melbourne CBD lies in the suburb of Carlton under the jurisdiction of the City of Melbourne (LGA) (Levin et al. 2018; Stubbs et al.

2017). The site to be renewed is spread across three locations within the Carlton public housing estate. The three sites namely, Lygon & Rathdowne (LR), Elgin & Nicholson (EN), Keppel & Cardigan (KC),

2 Elgin St

Nicholson St

ve ser ll Re Nei

t ree ll St Nei

Rathdowne St

St pel Kep

Lygon Street

1 Cardigan St

3

Carlton Public Housing Estate Carlton Public Redevelopment Site

Map 3: Neighbourhood Map of Carlton Public Housing Estate & Redevelopment Site (My Maps 2021, Victoria 2009) Created by (Author 2021)

20

Investigating PPP for Australian Social Housing

are well connected to public transport with bus stops and light rails located on its immediate streets shown on the Map 3. Owing to its location in the inner suburb, the estate is surrounded by mixed-use buildings of varying heights and high amenities, characterised by youths similar to its surroundings (Stubbs et al. 2017; Victoria 2009).

Prior to redevelopment in 2006, a total of 1036 public housing were spread across Lygon & Rathdowne and Elgin & Nicholson sites, with 136 three-bedroom walk-up & 648 high-rise apartments, and 56 three-bedroom walk-up & 196 high-rise apartments respectively. However, Keppel & Cardigan site has been unoccupied since 1998, with the presence of heritage structures like the Queen Elizabeth Centre (Victoria 2009, 2018).

4.2.2 Policy Framework The past social policies that degenerated the public housing system (as discussed in section 2.3), along with policies considering the built form to be inappropriate in the inner-city context formed the impetus for Carlton public housing redevelopment (Stubbs et al. 2017). The redevelopment has been guided through a complex policy framework across the tier of governments. Melbourne’s Metropolitan Development plan, recognising public housing redevelopment as a strategy for catering to community needs, constituted the state policy framework (CoM 2007a).

The local planning policy guided through the City of Melbourne’s ‘Municipal Strategic Statement’, identified deficiency in social housing availability with the existing low-rise development in Carlton estate, being an inappropriate built form for inner-city context. The subsequent redevelopment took place with the amendment to Melbourne Planning Scheme in 2007, which incorporated guidelines for redevelopment through the Development Plan (DP), for the three sites. The guidelines incorporated standards for the built environment including building height, urban design so on, along with targets for integrated development through a ‘social mix’ policy (CoM 2007a, 2007b, 2021c)

4.2.3 Contract Following the proposal of ‘Carlton Public Housing Redevelopment’ (CPHR) in December 2002 by the Victorian State government, an expression of interest (EOI) was issued by the state for prospectus partners, with the finalization of the PPP in 2006. A single contract between the Victoria government and the private consortium- ‘Living Carlton Consortium’ (actors one to three in Table 3) set forth the terms for the redevelopment through nine stages (Levin et al. 2018; Stubbs et al. 2017).

CPHR’s vision guided by the ‘development plan’ (2007), was drawn through a community baseline study by the Victorian government. The integrated renewal (physical, social, economic, and environment) sought to improve the built environment to cater community’s present needs and improve safety. CPHR strategy to reduce the stigmatisation through ‘social mix’ redevelopment, set to reduce social housing to 23% (excluding age care) with a target of ‘246 social housing, 162 aged care, 832 private dwellings, and 181 dwellings in Retirement Community’ (Stubbs et al. 201; Victoria 2009).

21 Investigating PPP for Australian Social Housing

An overview of the public-private actors in PPP is provided below: S No ACTORS ROLE 1

2 3 4

Australand (now Frasers Property Australia) & Citta Property Group St Hillier’s Group

AFFILIATION

Property developer for demolition and reconstruction of social & private housing, community facilities, urban design, upgrade existing social housings Property developer, but took administration in 2008 Australian Unity National healthcare service for age care tenancy management Victorian Department Project management, Tenancy management of Human Services of social housings (DHHS)

Private

Private Private Public

Table 3: Public-Private Actors in Carlton Public Housing Redevelopment (Stubbs et al. 2017; Victoria Government 2018) Compiled by (Author 2021) The finance model for the $250 million project, included a $50 million contribution from the government, through the sale of the public land, while the rest was funded by the private consortium. The state reserved a portion of the profit from sales of private units for itself (Victoria 2018).

The implementation of the project was guided through the government-approved Development Plan (DP) which provided guidelines and standards for private sector physical, social, economic, and environmental outcomes (Victoria 2018).

4.2.4 Outcomes Built Environment

Enclosed Internal Community Garden

Rathdowne St

Drummond St

The redevelopment increased the public housing stock by 28%, however, the study reveals a lack of housing diversity in the outcome. In addition, design strategies have promoted subtle discriminatory practices between the tenure types. Drawing attention to the two private buildings (Viva & Zest) and one public housing built at Lygon & Rathdowne site, it was observed that they were laid in U-shape with separate entrances from different streets as shown in Map 4 (Stubbs et al. 2017).

Entrance of viva complex Princes S t (private building) through Princes St Entrance of social housing through Drummond St

Entrance to zest complex (private building) through Rathdowne St

Map 4: Mono-tenure buildings in Lygon & Rathdowne site (site one of CPHR) (Google Maps 2021a; Stubbs et al. 2017) Compiled by (Author 2021)

22

Investigating PPP for Australian Social Housing

Additionally, the internal garden enclosed by the U-shape building layout as shown in Map 4, supposedly a ‘community garden’ was physically partitioned from the public housing building through a featured wall as shown in Figure 3 (Levin et al. 2018). Interestingly, Citta Property Group (2014), claims the internal green space aims to foster interaction between residents (Levin et al. 2015). A further inquiry is suggested to understand the private consortium’s definition of ‘residents’.

Wall separating social housing from internal garden

Social Housing at Lygon & Rathdowne site

Enclosed Internal Garden

Figure 3: Wall separating social housing from internal garden (Google Maps 2021b) Compiled by (Author 2021)

Further discriminatory practices could be observed on the rooftop, with private buildings having amenities like BBQ, while public buildings having utilitarian clothes drying racks. Although the exteriors possess a better aesthetic, additional design treatment like featured tiles is observed in private buildings as shown in Figure 4 (Stubbs et al. 2017).

Entrance to social housing building with simpilistic design

Entrance to private housing building with features tiles

Figure 4: Comparing aesthetics of social and private housing (Stubbs et al. 2017) Compiled by (Author 2021)

The conversion of Neill Street into community space with pedestrian connectivity as in Map 3 revealed increased use of outdoor space by social housing tenants. The longitudinal study demonstrates a general satisfaction with the quality of the new units and an increased sense of safety, but the survey received a mixed review on stigmatisation (Levin et al. 2018; Victoria 2018). Kelly (2019) attributes the mixed review to the nearby high-rise public housing still existing in the rest of the estate.

Tenancy Management:

With no clause for tenancy management in the PPP contract, ownership and tenancy management of social housing was retained with DHHS; and the private buildings were maintained by a joint owner’s Investigating PPP for Australian Social Housing

23

corporation as per the Owners Corporation Act 2006 (Stubbs et al. 2017).

The performance of DHHS in the relocation process is reflected in its poor outcome of only 40% of tenants returning to the new development. The most cited reasons were smaller unit sizes than expected and the significant time lag between re-allocation. However, it is to be noted that the disruption to the social networks was limited, due to the temporary units being offered in nearby high-rise public housing units. Nevertheless, the effect on those who moved out permanently is unaccounted.

Although, some tenants accounted the experience to be stressful, evidence of community building support was not found (Levin et al. 2018).

Community Engagement

In the initial phase, DHHS created the Community Liaison Committee (CLC), comprising of nominated community representatives to facilitate communication (Stubbs et al. 2017). During the relocation phase, there was no opportunity for formal community participation, but one-way information delivery, which Kelly (2019) argues as the basis for misconception on unit size (Levin et al. 2018).

During the design phase, DHHS formed a ‘Tenant Design Review Committee’, providing an opportunity for tenants to provide feedback on plans/designs, along with learning about design constraints.

DHHS reported workshops being conducted to understand plans/designs, along with providing translators to facilitate direct interaction with project architects (Stubbs et al. 2017).

With the cessation of CLC’s operation in 2014 after completion of social housing, the social resident’s self-organised community group - Carlton Housing Estate Residents Services (CHERS) has reported difficulty in representing the community’s concerns to the authorities (Stubbs et al. 2017).

Social Mix

The mono-tenure private and public buildings with discriminatory design practices (as discussed in SECTION), limited the opportunity for mixed tenure interaction. However, DHHS reported that the initial planning strategy considered ‘salt and pepper’ mix redevelopment, but withdrew that proposition, due to perceived difficulty with cost, management, and market feasibility for private units (Stubbs et al. 2017). Interestingly, a survey from the private owners reported a lack of awareness on mixed tenure redevelopment, with some being disappointed for the lack of transparency during purchase. Furthermore, some private owners confessed they wouldn’t have purchased housing in mixed tenure if appropriate information was provided. It is to be noted that a survey among the private residents who attended mixed tenure meeting for environmental sustainability by the City of Melbourne - ‘Eco-Carlton’, held a favourable stand for better social mix (Levin et al. 2015). Limited evidence is found on mixed tenure interaction, with private owners, assuming lack of time or interest from the private tenures to be the reason (Levin et al. 2015).

Economic

DHHS, reported higher financial returns from the project than expected, despite facing the Global Financial Crisis (Stubbs et al. 2017).

24

Investigating PPP for Australian Social Housing

05

DISCUSSIONS & RECOMMENDATIONS 5.1 Comparative Analysis While the individual case studies provide a comprehensive understanding of the dynamics between the Actors, and the physical and social outcome on the Place, but a comparative analysis of both the case studies provides an opportunity to analyse the context that resulted in the outcome. The comparative analysis of ‘Bonnyrigg Living Communities Project’ (BLCP) and ‘Carlton Public Housing Redevelopment’ (CPHR) intends to investigate the role of the Actors and its contextual outcome against the established analytical framework in the literature review. This analysis would form the basis for theoretical and empirical recommendations for enhancing public-private collaboration in social housing delivery in Australia.

Private Sector

The roles and responsibilities delegated to the private consortium, differ between BLCP and CPHR (refer to Table 1 & 3), however, a substantial amount of private finance has been contributed to redevelopment in both cases. In concurrence with Colenutt’s (2020), argument of private finance potentially introducing the risks of financialization, the impact was more distinctly observed in BLCP. The subsequent increase in dwelling density following the ‘market failure’ of quadplex model in stage one; And the dissolution of PPP as a consequence of the Global Financial Crisis (GFC) jeopardizing the project and the tenants, could be argued as the inability of the private sector to account for ‘externalities’ and exposing the project to the ebbs and flows of the financial market (CFRC 2013) (Harvey & Barry, 2017). This observation also raises skepticism on the argument that ‘claims’ PPP model to transfers the risk (IPA 2008; Yescombe 2007).

On the other hand, it is interesting to note that CPHR’s financial returns were better, despite the project timeline coinciding with GFC (Stubbs et al. 2017). A financial assessment of this project could potentially be future research scope to understand the strategies that mitigated the impact. However, a critical examination of CPHR, reveals the subtle impact of the private market. The systematic design Investigating PPP for Australian Social Housing

25

elements that segregated the mixed tenure, due to reasons like ‘cost, management, and market feasibility’ reinforces the argument of housing policy being financialised with the involvement of private players (Levin et al. 2018; Stubbs, et al. 2017) While evaluating the strategies implemented for negotiation with private players, BLCP had taken a better approach than CPHR. Although BLCP transferred the social housing to CHP, it was only until the lease period, hence retaining the ownership. Also, the financial arrangement of BLCP witnessed contribution to social outcomes only, but the financial contribution of CPHR towards capital funding witnessed sales of a public asset, making the model unsustainable (Brown 2007; Victoria 2018). The market conditions of BLCP could be further studied to understand the context that enabled it.

Public Sector

Although, the government had played a greater role in CPHR than in BLCP (refer to table 1 & table 3), the outcomes of BLCP were observed to be superior. The state government agencies being the primary public authority in both the case studies, played a pivotal role in initialising the projects, negotiating the terms, and defining the framework for the collaboration.

The baseline study commissioned by the government provided the basis to define the vision of the projects (Stubbs et al. 2005; Victoria 2009). However, it could be argued the factors that facilitated the translation of vision into guidelines for the private sector, played a pivotal role in the differing outcome quality. Adding to the previous discussion of private players introducing the risk of finanicialisation, it could be argued that inconsiderate contractual guidelines could exemplify the risk. The contractual nature of BLCP, which allowed stage-wise review, provided the opportunity to improve diversity, quality, and tenure mix, which was not feasible in CPHR due to its contractual nature (Brown 2007; Stubbs, et al. 2017). Additionally, the importance of the state in a social project is well exhibited in BLCP, with LAHC taking account of the ‘externalities’ by delivering the project since the dissolution of PPP (CFRC 2013).

Partnerships

The comparative analysis demonstrates the importance of establishing “trust, willingness, and power”, in the initial phase for a stable partnership (Walker & Wen 2008). In BLCP, the government was actively involved in the initial phase “informing” the benefits of PPP to the residents (refer to Table 2), along with creating a ‘Community Reference Group’ which was open to all members (Stubbs et al.

2005). However, in CPHR, the Community Liaison Committee (CLC) created was limited to selected representatives from the community. This difference in approach resulted in the differing level of ‘trust’ as reported in the longitudinal study, which revealed a welcoming attitude in BLCP residents towards PPP, while CPHR viewed the process as an economic opportunity for the state (CFRC 2013; Stubbs et al. 2017). It is interesting to note that, according to Arnstein’s (2019) level of citizen control, the initial phase community engagement in BLCP is only one rung higher (“Informing”) than CPHR (“Manipulation”), but much difference is observed in terms of establishing trust among the stakeholders.

26

Investigating PPP for Australian Social Housing

Social Mix

The ‘social mix’ policy applied through tenure mix redevelopment (physical intervention) to overcome the social issues (like stigmatization, safety, so on), has played out differently in both the case studies.

From, the longitudinal study, improvement of safety with the new built form has been reported in both BLCP & CPHR. Despite the discriminatory design practices in CPHR, the tenants perceived a better sense of safety with increased outdoor use. However, the results on stigmatization were positive in BLCP but not in CPHR (CFRC 2013; Levin et al. 2018).

The difference in the results of stigmatization, is analysed through a critical review of the ‘social mix’ policy. Considering the three dimensions of ‘social mix’ as identified by Tunstall and Fenton (cited in Darcy & Rogers 2019), the ‘concentration’ of social housing (‘composition’) on the ‘scale’ of the estate is spatially analysed using the Getis-Ord gi* algorithm.

The Map 5 below shows the result of the analysis, demonstrating that CPHR’s Lygon & Rathdowne site is still a hotspot for social housing despite undergoing mixed-tenure redevelopment, while the stages that have undergone redevelopment in BLCP are not a hotspot.

Bonnyrigg Public Housing Estate

Carlton Public Housing Redevelopment site

Legend Site marked for redevelopment •

•

As this map is created using ABS (2016), it shows the progress of the BLCP until 4 th stage of the redevelopment, and complete redevelopment for CPHR (refer Map 2 for stages) The redeveloped stage 1 to 4 in BLCP is not a 99% hotspot, while CPHR’s ygon & Rathdowne site is still 99% hotspot

Map 5: Comparative Analysis of BLCP’s & CPHR’s Hotspot Analysis Results for BLCP & CPHR (ABS 2016) Created by: (Author 2021)

The explanation of CPHR still being a hotspot even after redevelopment, can be derived by understanding the Getis-Ord gi* algorithm. The algorithm considers an area to be a hotspot when the area has a high concentration and is also surrounded by high concentration (ArcGIS Pro 2021). Hence, the redevelopment of the site with mono-tenure buildings along with being surrounded by high-rise public housing (Stubbs et al. 2017), makes the area a hotspot for social housing. It can be argued that, although the mixed tenure redevelopment was applied at site ‘scale’, the concentration of social housing at the estate ‘scale’ is still high, making the area prone to social issues like stigmatization.

Investigating PPP for Australian Social Housing

27

This demonstration emphasis the importance to consider the context of the redevelopment and invalidates the general application of 30:70 (public to private) mixed-tenure redevelopment at the site ‘scale’. Additionally, it affirms the argument of Darcy & Rogers (2019), that ‘site boundary’ may not be the appropriate ‘scale’ to consider ‘social mix’ policy as it overlooks the existing social networks.

Tenancy Management

The responsibility of social housing tenancy management being held by contrasting actors in BLCP (Community Housing Provider) & CPHR (State Agency), provides an opportunity to study public and private sector capabilities (refer to Table 1 & 3). During the relocation process, the longitudinal survey shows minimal disruption to social networks in both cases. However, it can be argued that the result is a consequence of strategic intent in BLCP, and coincidental in CPHR. The staged approach in BLCP allowed relocation within the estate, while in CPHR the tenants were relocated to nearby public housing which was coincidently in proximity. However, the impact on residents who moved out permanently is unaccounted, due to limited data availability. While, BLCP followed a sophisticated approach, like showing multiple options for those moving out and offering a ‘community building’ program to those who remained, such initiatives were unfound in CPHR (CFRC 2013; Levin et al. 2018). Overall, the demonstrated sophistication by CHP, makes it better capable to deliver tenancy management services.

Community Engagement

The level of community engagement varying over different phases of the redevelopment has impacted the outcomes distinctly. While the importance of engagement in the initial phase to establish ‘trust’, has been demonstrated in previous section while discussing partnerships , it could be argued that misleading strategies have been applied in BLCP to establish trust. Although the PPP fact sheet (refer to Table 2) constructed a positive perception of PPP, the complaints raised in 2012 with the project delay hold testimony to the inability of tenants to anticipate risks (Pinnegar 2013). Hence, it can be argued that although engagement in the initial phase develops trust, it is necessary to engage responsibly to maintain trust.

In the relocation phase, evidence suggests miscommunication as a potential reason to lose residents permanently. In BLCP and CPHR, the misconception on pet policy and unit size respectively were cited as the main factor for permanent relocation (CFRC 2013). Hence, it can be argued that developing a proper two-way communication channel at this phase may potentially increase the residents’ retention rate.

In the Design Phase, the BLCP consultation process demonstrated sophistication over CPHR. Although, CPHR formed a ‘Tenant Design Review committee’ with translators to mediate with the architects.

BLCP conducted innovative themes-based consultation spread over time, along with workshops with translators to familiarise with design/plans. The difference in the approach is reflected with better design quality outcomes with satisfaction in BLCP (CFRC 2013; Levin et al. 2018; Rogers 2011; Stubbs et al. 2017). In the delivery phase, BLCP provided newsletters/audio CDs in preferred language along

28

Investigating PPP for Australian Social Housing

with monthly coffee meetings for project updates, such initiatives were not observed in CPHR. It can be argued that the perception of ‘long time gap’ as reported by the Carlton tenants, could have been mitigated by associating them with the project through regular updates (Rogers 2011).

To maintain the benefits of the redevelopment, it is necessary to ensure ongoing communication.

While tenancy management was provided in BLCP, through the long-term lease of social housing to CHP. Carlton community had raised concerns in communicating their issues to the authorities. Also, the lessons from the Eco-Carlton program suggest that mixed tenure programs, improve social networks between public-private tenants, promoting social mix (Brown 2007; Levin et al. 2015).

5.2 Recommendations

The research contributes theoretical innovations and empirical evidence through analysing the preceding practice of social housing redevelopment through PPP. The contributed knowledge would provide insights to improve public-private collaboration for social housing in Australia.

The study synthesis the understanding of ‘financialisation of housing’ from a complex discipline-specific terminology to demonstrating it in everyday experiences. The distress experienced by the tenants of BLCP with the dissolution of PPP due to GFC, and discriminatory built form outcome in CPHR due to ‘market feasibility’, are some of the everyday consequences of exposing the housing market to financial markets. It is recommended for the partnership framework to consider the potential everyday risk on the community and prepare mitigation strategies.

Strategic involvement of government is recommended, rather than taking extensive responsibilities.

The strategic intervention of the government in the initial phase of BLCP built the foundation of the community‘s trust. However, responsible engagement is necessary to maintain trust. Additionally, judicious guidelines of the stage-wise development in contract, delivered housing quality and diversity, along with maintaining social networks. In contrast, CPHR had an extensive role of government from project to tenancy management, but the project lacked strategic insights, resulting in substandard outcomes. Hence, the government’s strategic intervention in negotiating and framing the guidelines has a greater impact on the project.

The inevitable role of the government in social housing delivery is emphasised through the demonstration of the government’s capability in accounting for ‘externalities’ as in the BLCP case. It is to be noted that both the case studies constituted government funds and leased land, suggesting the minimal contribution to the feasibility of public-private partnership.

The demonstrated sophistication of the Community Housing Provider (CHP) in tenancy management established its superiority over government-led tenancy management. In addition, to recommending delegation of tenancy management to CHP, the study also recommends improving the tenancy management framework. The analysis reveals a community support program excluding residents who left Investigating PPP for Australian Social Housing

29

the redevelopment site permanently. A reinvented tenancy management framework, that provides support to all residents is recommended.

Through a quantitative analysis, the research disproves the current practice of ‘social mix’ policy and urges to consider the ‘context’ of the redevelopment. The application of mixed tenure redevelopment at the site ‘scale’, may not be the appropriate scale for redevelopment as it may disregard the ‘social networks’, and fail to deliver the intended physical and social outcomes of ‘social mix’ policy.

The analysis of ‘social mix’ policy and ‘tenancy management, suggests the redevelopment process was ‘site centric’/ ‘market centrict’, or rather the importance of tangible asset (project land), preceded the ‘social networks. The discussion and recommendation of ‘social mix’ policy and ‘tenancy management’ suggest prioritising ‘social networks’ for better outcomes. The theoretical contribution from the research recommends social housing redevelopment to be ‘community centric’ by prioritizing ‘social networks’, rather than the existing ‘market centric’ approach which gives precedence to land (site boundaries).

The research provides an innovative perspective for community engagement in social housing redevelopment projects. It relates community engagement in different phases to its consequences and suggests a ‘community centric’ / ‘goal oriented’ community engagement framework. The research observes that the key to establishing ‘trust’ in the partnership lies in an extensive engagement in the initial planning phase. To increase the ‘retention rate’ of the social housing tenants, misconceptions in the ‘relocation phase’ are to be cleared through strong communication channels; in addition, engagement during the ‘delivery phase’ helps the tenants to feel associated with the project and maintain the ‘retention rate’. For the ‘satisfaction’ of the built environment, engagement during the ‘design phase’ is vital. To conclude, the key to ‘trust’ lies in the ‘initial phase’, to increase ‘retention rate’, relocation and delivery phase are crucial, and to obtain ‘satisfaction’, design phase is to be focused.

Although the study contributes to the knowledge of the partnership approach for social housing in Australia. The data availability and analysis method bring limitations to the process. While most of the qualitative analysis is conducted with secondary data sources, primary data could be used to evaluate the research. In addition, an analysis of the recommendations with the current policy framework for social housing is recommended. While the study observed different levels of impact on BLCP and CPHR by GFC, the research could not identify the underlying reason due to the limitation of project scope. However, a further interdisciplinary approach could be conducted to explain the difference, which could potentially contribute to developing mitigation strategies.

The research by its scope was limited to understanding the impact of public-private actors on the physical, social & economic outcomes of the place, however, it overlooked its impact on other attributes like environmental outcomes.

30

Investigating PPP for Australian Social Housing

06

CONCLUSION The importance of public-private collaboration for a sustainable social housing system in Australia formed the fundamental basis for conducting this research. The study has recognised that the social housing system in Australia is at the crossroads of transformation through an innovative partnership.

To support the metamorphosis, a case study approach was employed to understand the diverse attributes that could influence the outcomes in this collaborative process. While the case study approach was used to collect & analyse the data, it is the extensive review of the existing scholarly articles, that provided the framework for the analyses. The review provided a scholarly understanding of the ‘Actors’ involved in Public-Private Partnership and comprehended the specific characteristic of ‘Place’ (Public estate renewal) on which the actors function.

The qualitative study of the individual cases - ‘Bonnyrigg Living Communities Project’ (BLCP) and ‘Carlton Public Housing Redevelopment’ (CPHR), selected for their contrasting attributes, provided insights on the dynamics between the public-private institutions (Actors), and the outcomes of the public estate (Place) renewal. Data on the policy framework and contract details gathered through various secondary sources established the understanding of relations between the actors. As for the outcomes, data were collected through secondary surveys, interviews, reports to understand the physical and social outcomes (like built environment, tenancy management, social mix), however, it is to be noted that the study did not consider other attributes like environmental, which is the limitations of this study.

Although the individual case study provided insights on dynamics between the actor and the outcomes of the place, it is the comparative analysis technique, that introduced the context and assisted in relating the dynamics between the Actors to the relevant outcomes. The comparative analyses conducted through meticulously utilising the established analytical framework, provided insights on the risks of involving private players along with potential mitigation strategies that could be developed by the state. The study explains the risk of private players is not restricted to the financial markets alone but has implications on the everyday life of the social housing residents. However, the research has found appropriate contractual guidelines, would potentially help mitigate the risks. Apart from ensuring minimal risk, the study emphasises the inevitable role of the government, particularly in the initial phase for initiating, enabling the partnership, and developing ‘trust’. Despite, the significance 31 Investigating PPP for Australian Social Housing

of the government, the study finds it befitting to restrict them to a strategic role, and outsource executive functions like tenancy management, to Community Housing Providers (CHPs) for their sophisticated management. The research recommends an evolved framework for tenancy management and social mix policy frameworks that considers the existing ‘social networks’, and discards the practiced site-centric/market-centric approach. The pivotal role of community engagement in establishing trust, increasing the tenancy retention rate, and satisfaction in outcomes, has been emphasised through the study.

By providing an understanding of the varying influence of the public-private actors on the collaborative outcomes and recommending a community-centric approach to update the established practices, could potentially contribute to a framework for future Australian social housing through public-private partnerships.

32

Investigating PPP for Australian Social Housing

Appendix Some major secondary data sources use in case study and their possible limitations Bonnyrigg Public Estate Renewal: S No

Title

1

The Bonnyrigg Living Communities: Baseline Survey Summary of contracts of the Bonnyrigg ‘Living Communities’ Public Private Partnership project Citizenship, tenant participation and a public–private partnership

Baseline Survey

Interviews

Contract Summary

No information on negotiations, only final contract Focus on community engagment

Bonnyrigg Longitudinal Panel Study First wave: 2012 Urban and Social Planning Through Public-Private Part-nership: The Case of The Bonnyrigg Living Communi-ties Project, Sydney Australia

Longitudinal Survey

2

3 4 5

Data Type

Phd Thesis

Book Chapter

Observations

Survey is taken to different cohorts Insights on context, policy framework

The listed are some major, apart from it the following have been used as well: (Urbis 2008; Rogers 2012; Pinnegar 2013) Carlton Public Housing Redevelopment: S No

Title

1

Carlton Housing Redevelopment – Report Nº 1 Baseline Study Best Practice in Multi-Tenure Development: Part A: Australian Case Studies Experiences of Tenants Relocation in the Carlton Public Housing Estate, Melbourne Public Housing Renewal Program: Submission to the Legal and Social Issues Committee Inquiry into the Public Housing Renewal Program

2

3

4

Data Type Baseline Study Industry report

Journal Article

Government Report

Observations Less qualitative information Proceedings from interview with DHHS Interviews from the residents Insights on Policy framework & context

The listed are some major, apart from it the following have been used as well: (Levin et al. 2013, 2015,2018; Kelly 2019)

Investigating PPP for Australian Social Housing

33

Reference List Australian Institute of Health and Welfare 2021, Australia’s health 2016, AIHW, viewed 21 September 2021, https://www.aihw.gov.au/reports/australias-health/australias-health-2016/contents/chapter-4-determinants-of-health ArcGIS Pro, 2021, How Hot Spot Analysis (Getis-Ord Gi*) works, viewed 31 October 2021, https://pro.arcgis.com/en/pro-app/latest/tool-reference/spatial-statistics/h-how-hot-spot-analysisgetis-ord-gi-spatial-stati.htm Arnstein, S R 2019, ‘A Ladder of Citizen Participation’, Journal of the American Planning Association, vol. 85, no. 1, pp. 24-34.

Arthurson, K 2008, ‘Australian Public Housing and the Diverse Histories of Social Mix’, JOURNAL OF URBAN HISTORY, vol. 34, no. 3, pp. 484-501.

Barnes, E, Writer, T & Hartley, C 2021, Social Housing in NSW: Report 1 Contemporary Analysis, viewed 28 September 2021, https://www.csi.edu.au/media/uploads/social_housing_in_nsw_contemporary_analysis.pdf Baxamusa, M 2020, A new model for housing finance: Private and Public Sector Working Together to Build Affordability,1st edn, Routledge, New York.

Bianchi, R, J, Drew, M, E & Whittaker, T 2017,When Public Private Partnerships (PPPs) Turn Sour: Australian Evidence, CSIRO-MONASH, Brisbane, viewed 12 September 2021. https://www.monash.edu/__data/assets/pdf_file/0020/2052092/WP2017-03.pdf Bijen, G 2015, ‘Designing ‘community’ : the significance of place and urban design in public housing renewal’, Ph.D.thesis, viewed 15 September 2021, https://researchdirect.westernsydney.edu.au/islandora/object/uws:36706 Christophers, B 2018, audio podcast, Land Enclosure, City Road Podcast, 14 November, accessed 15 September 2021, https://cityroadpod.org/2018/11/ City Futures Research Centre, 2013, Bonnyrigg Longitudinal Panel Study First wave: 2012, Sydney: UNSW, CFRC, viewed 15 September 2021, https://cityfutures.ada.unsw.edu.au//research/projects/bonnyrigg-longitudinal-study/ City of Melbourne, 2005, CITY PLAN 2010 – UPDATE , CoM, viewed 18 September 2021, https://www.melbourne.vic.gov.au/about-council/committees-meetings/meeting-archive/MeetingAgendaItemAttachments/415/6576/C2_55_200504260500.pdf City of Melbourne, 2007a, Melbourne Planning Scheme Amendment C117 – Carlton Housing Precincts, CoM,viewed 20 September 2021, https://www.melbourne.vic.gov.au/about-council/committees-meetings/meeting-archive/MeetingAgendaItemAttachments/27/506/PC_55_200704030630.pdf City of Melbourne, 2007b, MELBOURNE PLANNING SCHEME: Schedule 8 to the Development Plan Overlay, CoM, viewed 18 September 2021, https://planning-schemes.api.delwp.vic.gov.au/schemes/melbourne/ordinance/43_04s08_melb.pdf City of Melbourne, 2007c, MPS Amendment C117 – Carlton Housing Precincts – Panel Report, CoM, viewed 20 September 2021, https://planning-schemes.api.delwp.vic.gov.au/schemes/melbourne/ordinance/43_04s08_melb.pdf 34

Investigating PPP for Australian Social Housing

City of Melbourne, 2021a, 05DPO Development Plan, CoM, viewed 18 October 2021, https://planning-schemes.api.delwp.vic.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0008/475748/melbourne05dpo.pdf?_ga=2.159123385.220144661.1635175935-1334998133.1634020445 City of Melbourne, 2021b, City of Melbourne: Ordinance, CoM, viewed 12 October 2021, https://www.planning.vic.gov.au/schemes-and-amendments/browse-planning-scheme/planning-scheme?f.Scheme%7CplanningSchemeName=Melbourne City of Melbourne, 2021c, Urban Planning, CoM, viewed 12 October 2021, https://www.melbourne.vic.gov.au/building-and-development/urban-planning/Pages/urban-planning.aspx Colenutt, B 2020, The Property Lobby: The hidden reality behind the housing crisis, Bristol University Press, Bristol.

Colenutt, B 2020, The Property Lobby: Local Case Studies, Bristol University Press, Bristol.

Collins, J R 2018, Why can’t you afford a home?, viewed 10 November 2020, https://medium.com/iipp-blog/why-cant-you-afford-a-home-9c5cf009be21 Commonwealth Government, 2017, National Affordable Housing Agreement (NAHA), Canberra, viewed 10 September 2021, https://center4affordablehousing.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/national-housing-agreement. pdf Commonwealth Government, 2021, Housing Australia Future Fund, Canberra, viewed 31 October 2021, https://alp.org.au/policies/housing_future_fund Commonwealth of Australia, 2016, National Public Private Partnership Guidelines, Canberra, viewed 11 September 2021, https://www.treasury.act.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0010/869941/Guidelines-for-PPPs-SecondEdition.pdf Commonwealth of Australia, 2016, National Public Private Partnership Policy Framework, Canberra, viewed 11 September 2021, https://ppp.worldbank.org/public-private-partnership/library/australia-national-public-private-partnership-policy-framework Conteh, A, Liu , B & Roca, E 2016, Yes, Social Housing in Australia desperately needs Financial Innovation, Brisbane, viewed 13 September 2021, https://center4affordablehousing.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/2016-05-social-housing-in-australia-desperately-needs-financial-innovation.pdf Darcy , M. & Rogers, D 2019, Finding the Right Mix in Public Housing Redevelopment: Review of Literature and Research Findings, The Henry Hallron Trust, Sydney.

Darcy, M. & Rogers, D 2014, ‘Inhabitance, place-making and the right to the city: public housing redevelopment in Sydney’, International Journal of Housing Policy, vol. 14, no. 3, pp. 236-256.

Department of Health and Human Services, 2020, Environmental sustainability strategy, State Government of Victoria, DHHS, viewed 12 October 2021 https://www.dhhs.vic.gov.au/publications/environmental-sustainability-strategy-department-health-and-human-services Drakeford, M 2014, Privatisation and Social Policy, Routledge, New York.

Eastgate, J 2014, Issues for tenants in Public Housing renewal projects, viewed 15 September 2021, https://shelternsw.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/2014-Issues-for-tenants-in-public-housingInvestigating PPP for Australian Social Housing

35

-renewal-projects-literature-search-findings-Jon-Eastgate.pdf Fairfield City, 2018,GROWING THE SOUTH-WEST | Turning over a new leaf at Newleaf,viewed 10 October 2021, https://www.fairfieldchampion.com.au/story/5341140/turn-over-a-new-one/ Forrest , R & Murie, A 2011, Selling the welfare state: Privatisation of the public housing, Routledge, New Work.

Gilmour, T , Wiesel, I Pinnegar, S & Loosemore, M 2010, ‘Social infrastructure partnerships: a firm rock in a storm?’, Journal of Financial Management of Property and Construction, vol. 15, no. 3, pp.

247-259.

Gittins, R 2018, Who is to blame for the housing crisis and how to fix it, viewed 10 November 2020, https://www.smh.com.au/opinion/who-is-to-blame-for-the-housing-crisis-and-how-to-solve-it20180313-h0xe7s.html Google Maps 2021a, Carlton Public Housing, viewed 21 October 2021, https://www.google.com/maps/@-37.7929213,144.9705511,189a,35y,4.35h/data=!3m1!1e3 Google Maps 2021b, Carlton Public Housing, viewed 21 October 2021, https://www.google.com/maps/@-37.7924985,144.971304,61a,35y,232.46h,64.66t/ data=!3m1!1e3 Greater Sydney Commission, 2016, Metropolis of Three Cities, GSC, viewed 31 October 2021, https://www.greater.sydney/metropolis-of-three-cities Groenhart, L, E 2013, ‘Evaluating Tenure Mix Interventions: A Case Study from Sydney, Australia’, Housing Studies, vol. 28, no. 1, pp. 95-115.

Guarini , M, R & Battisti, F 2017, ‘A Model to Assess the Feasibility of Public–Private Partnership for Social Housing’, Buildings, vol. 7, no. 44, pp. 1-20.

Harvey, A & Barry, R 2017, Newleaf Bonnyrigg: Stage 6A and 7 development application on environment crisis, viewed 3 September 2021, https://apps.planningportal.nsw.gov.au Hegedüs, J, Lux, M & Teller, N 2013, Social Housing in Transition Countries, Routledge ,New York.

Hooker, J, L 2014, Australia’s essential housing crisis ,Collaborative solutions involving Institutional Capital & Public Private Partnership, viewed 4 September 2021, https://www.aph.gov.au/ Human Rights Commission 1996, Housing as a human right, National Conference on Homelessness Council to Homeless Persons, viewed 9 September 2021, https://humanrights.gov.au/sites/default/files/content/pdf/human_rights/housing.pdf Infrastructure Partnerships Australia, 2008, Submission to Inquiry into Housing Affordability in Australia, April 2008, IPA, viewed 9 September 2021, http://infrastructure.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/SUB_FED_Affordable-Housing_FINAL_080508.pdf Johnston, C 2003, Tenancies, communities, and the (re)development of public housing estates-a background paper, viewed 5 September 2021, https://shelternsw.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/2003-Tenancies-communities-and-the-redevelopment-of-public-housing-estates-background-paper-Craig-Johnston.pdf Kelly, D 2019, Understanding the assumptions and impacts of the Victorian Public Housing Renewal Program, viewed 7 September 2021, https://cur.org.au/cms/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/understanding-the-assumptions-and-impacts36

Investigating PPP for Australian Social Housing

-of-the-phrp-final-report-28-5-19.pdf Landcom, 2021, Newleaf, viewed 10 October 2021, https://www.landcom.com.au/places/newleaf-at-bonnyrigg/ Levin, I, Arthurson , K & Ziersch, A 2018, ‘Experiences of Tenants Relocation in the Carlton Public Housing Estate, Melbourne’, Urban Policy and Research, vol. 36, no. 3, pp. 354-366.

Levin, I, Arthurson, K & Ziersch, A 2013, Experiences of relocation in and around the Carlton Redevelopment Project, Stage 1, Melbourne, viewed 8 September 2021, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/327109283_Experiences_of_tenants’_relocation_in_ the_Carlton_public_housing_estate_redevelopment_Melbourne Levin, I, Arthurson, K & Ziersch, A 2015, ‘What is the meaning of ‘social mix’? A case study of implementing social mix policy at Carlton Housing Estate’, Australian Geographer, vol. 46, no. 4, pp. 491505.

Levin, I., Arthurson, K. & Ziersch, A, M 2014. ‘Social mix and the role of design: Competing interests in the Carlton Public Housing Estate Redevelopment,Melbourne’, viewed 6 September 2021, DOI:10.1016/j.cities.2014.04.002 Murillo, F 2001, ‘Private-public partnership, the compact city, and social housing: Best pratice for whom?’, Development and Cities, vol. 11, no. 2-3, pp. 336-343.

Murray, C & Collins, J, R 2020, When houses earn more than jobs: how we lost control of Australian house prices and how to get it back, viewed 10 November 2020, https://theconversation.com/when-houses-earn-more-than-jobs-how-we-lost-control-of-australianhouse-prices-and-how-to-get-it-back-144076 Murray, C, K 2020, The Australian housing supply myth, viewed 5 September 2021, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/337497248_The_Australian_housing_supply_myth My Maps 2021, Google My Maps, viewed 31 October 2021, https://www.google.com.au/maps/about/mymaps/ Neill, P, O 2008, Housing Affordability Literature Review and Affordable Housing Program Audit, viewed 25 September 2021, https://researchdirect.westernsydney.edu.au/islandora/object/uws%3A11827 NSW Department of Housing, 2007, Summary of contracts of the Bonnyrigg ‘Living Communities’ Public Private Partnership project, viewed 14 September 2021, https://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/la/papers/Pages/tabledpaperprofiles/summary-of-contracts-ofthe-bonnyrigg-li_21191.aspx NSW Government, 2016, Future Directions for Social Housing in NSW, NSW,viewed 18 September 2021, https://www.dpie.nsw.gov.au/land-and-housing-corporation/plans-and-policies/future-directions NSW Government, 2019, Future Directions for Social Housing, NSW, viewed 25 August 2021, https://www.facs.nsw.gov.au/about/reforms/future-directions NSW Government, 2019, Social and Affordable Housing Fund (SAHF), NSW, viewed 31 October 2021, https://www.facs.nsw.gov.au/about/reforms/future-directions/initiatives/SAHF NSW Government, 2020, Policy on Community Housing Provider-led Redevelopment of Social and Affordable Housing on LAHC-owned Land, NSW, Sydney: NSW Government.

NSW Government, 2021, $40 million boost for NSW social housing and jobs, NSW, viewed 31 October 2021, https://www.dpie.nsw.gov.au/land-and-housing-corporation/news/$40-million-boost-for-nsw-socialInvestigating PPP for Australian Social Housing

37

-housing-and-jobs NSW Government, 2021. Housing 2041: NSW Housing Strategy, NSW, viewed 18 September 2021, https://www.planning.nsw.gov.au/-/media/Files/DPE/Reports/Policy-and-legislation/NSW-HousingStrategy-Report-2021-Mayv2.pdf NSW Government, 2021, NSW Public Private Partnership (PPP) Policy & Guidelines, NSW, viewed 24 September 2021, https://www.treasury.nsw.gov.au/projects-initiatives/public-private-partnerships/policy-guidelines-and-publications Patterson, K, L, Ranahan, M, Silverman, R, M & Nockajski, T,H 2018,Community Development through Participatory, Engaged and Critical Analysis, Routledge ,New York.

Pawson, H 2015, Insights into NSW Urban Renewal projects, viewed 24 September 2021, https://www.be.unsw.edu.au/sites/default/files/upload/pdf/cityfutures/HP_SGCHsymposiumpresentation.pdf Pawson, H & Pinnegar, S 2018, Regenerating Australia’s public-housing estates, Routledge, New York.

Pinnegar, S 2013, ‘Negotiating the complexities of redevelopment through the everyday experiences of residents: the incremental renewal of Bonnyrigg’, State of Australian Cities Conference, Sydney, viewed 28 September 2021, https://apo.org.au/node/59790 Pinnegar, S 2011,Partnership working in the design and delivery of housing policy and programs, viewed 28 September 2021, https://www.ahuri.edu.au/research/final-reports/163 Rodrı´guez-Pose, A & Storper, M, n.d., Housing, urban growth and inequalities: The limits to deregulation and upzoning in reducing economic and spatial inequality, viewed 13 September 2021, https://ideas.repec.org/p/egu/wpaper/1914.html Rogers, D 2011, ‘Citizenship, tenant participation and a public–private partnership’,Ph.D. thesis, viewed 2 September 2021, https://researchdirect.westernsydney.edu.au/islandora/object/uws:17429 Rogers, D 2012, ‘The Politics of Space and Time Within Market-Centric Urban Policy: The case of the Bonnyrigg Living Communities Project’, Polymath: An Interdisciplinary Arts and Sciences Journal, vol.

2, no. 3, pp. 16-34.

Rogers, D 2013, Urban and Social Planning Through Public-Private Partnership: The Case of The Bonnyrigg Living Communities Project- Sydney Australia, International Society of City and Regional Planners , Brisbane.

Rose, J 2017,The Housing Supply Myth, Department of Geography and the Environment, viewed 12 September 2021, https://www.kpu.ca/sites/default/files/The%20Housing%20Supply%20Myth%20Report%20 John%20Rose.pdf SGCH, 2014, Changes at Newleaf Bonnyrigg, viewed 10 October 2021, https://www.sgch.com.au/changes-at-newleaf-bonnyrigg/ SGCH, 2021, Newleaf Communities, Bonnyrigg, viewed 10 October 2021, https://www.sgch.com.au/about-us/what-we-do/greatplaces/bonnyrigg/ Stubbs, J, Randolph , B & Judd, B 2005, The Bonnyrigg Living Communities: Baseline Survey, Sydney: City Futures Research Centre, viewed 11 September 2021, https://cityfutures.ada.unsw.edu.au//research/projects/bonnyrigg-household-survey/ 38

Investigating PPP for Australian Social Housing

Stubbs, J, Storer, J, Lux , C, Storer, T, Ireland, L 2017, Best Practice in Multi-Tenure Development: Part A: Australian Case Studies, Bulli NSW: Judith Stubbs & Associates, viewed 17 September 2021, https://communityhousing.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/PART-A-AUSTRALIAN-CASE-STUDIES-170703.pdf The Conversation, 2013, Funding the future after the demise of PPPs, viewed 10 October 2021, https://theconversation.com/funding-the-future-after-the-demise-of-ppps-18869 Trigge, R 2003, Affordable Housing in Public Private Partnership, viewed 21 September 2021. https://www.pc.gov.au/inquiries/completed/first-home-ownership/submissions/sub155/sub155.pdf Urbis, 2008, Bonnyrigg Master Plan, viewed 10 October 2021, https://www.yumpu.com/en/document/read/29445228/bonnyrigg-masterplan-fairfield-city-council-nsw-government Victoria Government 2009, Carlton Housing Redevelopment – Report No.1 Baseline Study, Melbourne: Victorian Government Department of Human Services, Victoria, viewed 21 September,2021, https://cdn.ymaws.com/www.istr.org/resource/resmgr/working_papers_barcelona/walker.earles. pdf Victoria Government 2018, Public Housing Renewal Program: Submission to the Legal and Social Issues Committee Inquiry into the Public Housing Renewal Program, Victoria, viewed 31 October 2021, https://www.parliament.vic.gov.au/923-lsic-lc/inquiry-into Walker , B, A & Wen, 2008, Public Private Partnerships for Increasing Social Housing: A MetaSynthesis of Qualitative Studies to Inform NonProfit Practice in a Regional Area, viewed 13 September 2021, https://cdn.ymaws.com/www.istr.org/resource/resmgr/working_papers_barcelona/walker.earles. pdf Williams, P 2000, ‘Inclusionary zoning and affordable housing in Sydney’, Urban Policy and Research, vol. 3, no. 18, pp. 291-310.

Yates, J 2013, ’Evaluating social and affordable housing reform in Australia: lessons to be learned from history’, International Journal of Housing Policy, vol. 13, no. 2, pp. 111-133.

Yescombe, E 2007, Public-Private Partnerships Principles of Policy and Finance, 1st edn, Oxford: Elsevier Science & Technology, United Kingdom.

Investigating PPP for Australian Social Housing

39