Flemington and North Melbourne towers to be redeveloped with no public housing

Public Housing Redevelopment Sparks Debate in Melbourne

The redevelopment of public housing sites in North Melbourne and Flemington has ignited a heated debate about the future of social housing in Victoria. Critics argue that the absence of traditional public housing in the latest plans could set a worrying precedent for other high-rise sites across the state. Sarahosate, a community advocate, warns that failing to rebuild public housing in these areas could push vulnerable residents, including those experiencing homelessness, to regional areas or fringe suburbs. This would further marginalize already disadvantaged groups, undermining the state’s responsibility to provide affordable housing for those in greatest need.

At the heart of the debate is the role of private consortiums in delivering social housing. Community housing, which is exempt from GST and eligible for Commonwealth rent assistance, has become increasingly attractive to private investors, including super funds. The consortium Building Communities, which recently redeveloped low-rise housing at the Flemington estate, has now been awarded a contract to manage two high-rise towers without an open tender. Critics, including opposition spokesmen Richard Riordan and Greens housing spokeswoman Gabrielle de Vietri, have lambasted the decision, accusing the government of outsourcing the housing crisis to private interests.

Community Outrage Over Lack of Consultation

Residents of the affected estates have expressed frustration over the lack of consultation in the decision-making process. Barry Berih, a long-time resident of Alfred Street and lead plaintiff in a class action lawsuit against the government, highlighted the disappointing lack of communication. "They never consult the community first. We always hear at the last minute," he said. This sentiment reflects a broader concern that residents are being excluded from decisions that directly impact their lives. The government’s failure to engage with the community has deepened mistrust and reinforced perceptions that public housing is being prioritized for private gain rather than public good.

Despite the criticism, Housing Minister Harriet Shing has defended the government’s approach, emphasizing the importance of increasing the volume of new social housing. She noted that the redevelopment plans will deliver 39 percent more social housing, providing Victorians with modern, energy-efficient, and safe homes. However, advocates argue that this does not address the critical need for traditional public housing, which is specifically designed to support low-income individuals and those exiting homelessness.

Labor for Housing Advocates for Public Housing

Internal Labor advocacy group Labor for Housing has expressed disappointment at the absence of traditional public housing in the latest blueprint. While the group acknowledges the potential for future redevelopments, such as the two red-brick towers in Carlton being rebuilt as 100 percent public housing, they remain cautious. Convener Julijana Todorovic emphasized the importance of adhering to Victorian Labor’s 2024 state conference resolution, which commits to no net loss of public housing across the 44 sites. "In a housing crisis, the state cannot abrogate its obligation to provide for Victorians who need it most," she said.

Victoria’s Housing Crisis and the Role of Government

Victoria’s housing crisis is further highlighted by its status as the state with the nation’s lowest level of social housing as a proportion of overall housing stock. Public housing has declined from 4 percent in 1994 to just 2.4 percent today, rising to 2.9 percent when community housing is included. This stark reality underscores the urgent need for meaningful action to address the housing shortfall. While private investment can play a role in delivering new housing stock, critics argue that it must not come at the expense of traditional public housing.

The debate over the redevelopment of North Melbourne and Flemington highlights the need for a balanced approach that prioritizes both community needs and financial realities. As the Victorian government moves forward with its housing strategy, it must navigate the complex interplay between public and private interests, ensuring that the most vulnerable members of society are not left behind. The outcome of this debate will have far-reaching implications for the future of social housing in Victoria.