Sustaining a resilient housing system in southeast Queensland

ABSTRACT

The Covid-19 pandemic added an additional layer of pressure onto an already stressed housing system in Southeast Queensland (SEQ). Housing is a complex system and we argue that thinking about the separate components of housing in isolation, we are unable to consider the resiliency of housing as a whole system. The purpose of this paper is to inform and help structure resilient housing policy and strategy development in SEQ. Using qualitative methodologies, data were collected by conducting semi-structured interviews with 18 participants associated with the housing sector in SEQ, during the pandemic period. Participants were invited from five groups: community, government, consultants, developers and peak housing bodies. We found that rather than relying on reactive mechanisms, there needs to be a commitment from governments to work with other sectors to strategically plan for proactive and resilient-led approaches and policies to prepare for shocks. There is an opportunity at local, state and federal level governments to learn from this study to better understand what makes a housing system more resilient.

KEYWORDS:

• Resilient housing
• systems thinking
• southeast Queensland
• Covid-19 pandemic

Practitioner pointers

1. Policy makers need to break down siloed thinking by understanding housing as a multi-dimensional and multi-sectoral system and acknowledge the interconnection and interdependencies in the system.

2. Rather than relying on reactive mechanisms, governments need to work with other sectors to take a comprehensive approach and strategically plan for proactive and resilient-led housing policies to address current issues and prepare for future shocks and disturbances.

Introduction

Housing challenges in Australian cities are currently popular topics of policy debate and at the forefront of public consciousness (Pawson, Milligan, and Yates 2020). The Housing issue in Australia is not new. It was evident prior to the Covid-19 global pandemic. Cities across Australia have been home to a growing number of people living in housing stress (Baum et al. 2022). The Covid-19 pandemic not only worsened the housing challenges across Australian cities and regions, but also increased awareness about the current issues with our planning and policy systems and reprioritised the concept of resiliency in planning (Horne et al. 2020).

Since the beginning of the Covid-19 pandemic, Southeast Queensland (SEQ) renters and home buyers have fared the worst across all Australian states, due to unexpected interstate migration and associated decrease in housing availability and affordability (for rent and purchase) (Pawson et al. 2023). As well as shortages in existing housing stock, the supply of fully serviced land for new greenfield residential development is limited to a few years in many locations in SEQ (NHFIC Research 2023). There has been some cross-sectoral collaboration and innovation in the SEQ housing system in response to the Covid-19 pandemic (e.g. Queensland Government Rental Tenancies Response as explained later in this paper). However, instead of relying on reactive mechanisms, there needs to be a greater commitment to strategic planning and forward thinking and a focus on proactive and resilient-led cross-sectoral approaches and government policies to prepare for shocks. Until recently, the situation in Queensland reflected a siloed approach to policy development and delivery, with state and local governments liaising on an ‘as-needs’ basis, and the state government housing policy and action plans focussed on servicing clients at the acute end of the housing continuum.

Housing policy is complex and multifaceted. These characters are evident in Milligan and Tiernan’s (2011, 392) observation of the Australian housing policy community as being made of a diverse range of stakeholders, including ‘state governments, industry bodies, not-for-profit organisations, universities, private consultancy firms (both large generalists and smaller specialists) and high-level independent authorities, such as the Reserve Bank of Australia and the Productivity Commission’. As a dynamic, complex and interdependent system, housing is more than the sum of its parts and cannot be fully understood by looking at the individual elements separately (Gibb and Marsh 2019).

This research applies a systems thinking approach to inform and help structure resilient housing policy and strategy development. Systems thinking is used to study the various components and their interrelatedness within a complex system by considering the whole system, rather than the components in isolation (Bala et al. 2017). It enables us to ‘see the world as a complex system’ where ‘everything is connected to everything else’ (Sterman 2000, 4). Though not extensive, the literature for housing as a system is robust and offers an effective way to consider the various elements as a network of interconnecting parts, where actors have influence over certain aspects and exogenous factors drive changes in the system more broadly (see how a systems approach for housing has been used in several contexts, including Hong Kong (Hu and Shen 2000), England (Gibb and Marsh 2019), Scotland (O’Sullivan et al. 2004) and Western Europe (Van der Heijden 2013). The main research question for this paper is: ‘How can the housing system in SEQ be designed to cope with and recover from shocks and stresses such as the Covid-19 pandemic without risking the wellbeing of residents?’

The paper starts with a review of the literature on key concepts; systems thinking and resilient housing. It then provides a policy context for the housing system in SEQ, followed by a research methods section which outlines the data collection and analysis methods. The findings of the research are structured in two parts. Part one seeks to define a resilient housing system and its capacity for prevention and recovery. The second part focuses on SEQ and discusses the opportunities and challenges for sustaining a resilient housing system in the region. The paper concludes with discussion and conclusion sections.

Systems thinking

A system is a network of separate interrelating parts that form a more complex structure (Williams and Hummelbrunner 2011). While there is no universal definition of the systems thinking method, Williams and Hummelbrunner (2011) conclude that there is general agreement of three common characteristics. The first is an understanding of interrelationships, which is consistent across all systems thinking definitions. Gibb and Marsh (2019, 3) explain this as ‘complex patterns of interconnection and interdependency [that] fundamentally shape the way systems behave’. Second, there is a commitment to acknowledging, if not understanding, the multiple perspectives that provide input into a system (Williams and Hummelbrunner 2011). Different actors and institutions that constitute a system have different perspectives and understanding the diversity of these perspectives can be important in using systems thinking for effective social and policy change. Third, there is an awareness of boundaries, which determine what is inside and outside the system (Williams and Hummelbrunner 2011). Equally, it is important to distinguish the interactions within the system from the external shocks and drivers from outside.

As Gibb and Marsh (2019, 11) argued, there is a need to ‘think about housing as a dynamic, complex, interdependent’ system. Taking a systems perspective of housing enables policy makers and academics to break down siloed thinking by considering the whole system, rather than its separate parts (Gibb and Marsh 2019). According to Bourne (1981, 12), a housing system is defined as:

… a typically vague but convenient shorthand expression to encompass the full range of interrelationships between all of the actors (individual and corporate), housing units and institutions involved in the production, consumption and regulation of housing. It is thus a much broader term than housing market or sector.

The three core components of a housing system according to Gibb and Marsh (2019) are: external drivers (economic, demographic, policy and planning), internal dimensions (institutional space, tenure mix, place-based segments and housing types) and system outcomes (supply, price/rent, unmet needs). They suggest a recursive relationship between these three aspects. Additionally, Priemus, an early pioneer of thinking about housing as a system, stressed the importance of the context that the housing system sits within. He argued that the economic, demographic, political and spatial factors can all influence, and in turn, be influenced by the housing system (Priemus 1983 in Van der Heijden 2013).

Resilient housing system

Resilience emerged from ecology discipline in the 1960s and 1970s when scientists started to explore notions of adaptation and the ability for a system to absorb shocks and recover from sudden disturbances (Folke 2006). Disturbances can be endogenous (coming from within the system) or exogenous (a force or influencing factor from outside the system). Wilson (2014) explains that the concept of resiliency contains two aspects: prevention and recovery. First, a resilient system is one that can mitigate the consequences of disturbances and prevent major disruptions. Second, a resilient system can readily return to its desired state and recover in a suitable way.

It is crucial to acknowledge the inevitability of shocks and disturbances as integral to the housing system. Careful thought should be dedicated to recuperating from unforeseen factors that can influence people’s housing experiences. History and recent years have shown that shocks and disturbances can arise from various sources, such as health emergencies, political and economic instability, and climate-related crises. The nature of disturbance generally ranges from slow (e.g. climate change) to sudden (e.g. earthquake). It can be human caused (endogenous), such as a financial crisis or external (exogenous), including a tornado. Furthermore, disturbances encompass a spectrum of predictability ranging from probable and predictable events, e.g. a demographic change, to possible and unpredictable occurrences, e.g. a nuclear plant meltdown, or even improbable and unforeseen events, e.g. a meteor strike (Nicol and Knoepfel 2014) (see Figure 1). Several events causing shocks and disturbances to the housing system could be occurring in parallel to each other, and may have a compounding effect. Any economic shock, combined with slower environmental impacts (or sudden natural disasters), coupled with the COVID-19 pandemic creates a situation that many people might not be able to cope with thus influence the functionality of the housing system.

Figure 1. A conceptual understanding of housing system resilience (adapted from Gibb and Marsh 2019).

Discussion of resilience in the built environment context in general and housing specifically is relatively recent (Nicol and Knoepfel 2014). Urban resilience is defined as ‘the capacity of individuals, communities, institutions, businesses, and systems within a city to survive, adapt and grow no matter what kinds of chronic stresses and acute shocks they experience’ (Resilient Cities Network n.d.). Building a resilient and responsive housing system is challenging, as there is strong resistance to change, especially where institutional and instrumental contexts of the housing markets are relatively stable and there are functional imperatives of financial accumulation and political legitimisation (Van der Heijden 2013). Taking a systems approach in this paper helped us to identify the various elements of a housing system and, in turn, support forward-thinking ways to facilitate its resilience. Drawing on the literature review, Figure 1 illustrates a conceptual understanding of housing system resilience.

Policy context: housing in southeast Queensland

As the third-largest capital city region by population in Australia (Department of Infrastructure, Local Government and Planning 2017), SEQ is home to more than 3.8 million people – one in seven Australians (SEQ Council of Mayors 2022). The region covers 22,900 km² and includes 12 local governments (Department of Infrastructure, Local Government and Planning 2017). The housing system in SEQ is heavily influenced by the policies, roles and relationships of the three spheres of government, the development industry, the non-government community housing sector, and the values and preferences of the communities of the region. The policies of the various governments are dynamic, and they change according to the political, social and economic contexts. The following reviews the SEQ housing policy provided by three levels of government: Commonwealth, state and local.

Commonwealth government

There are several financial and regulatory mechanisms that the Commonwealth Government deploys from time to time that impact the region’s housing system. These range from decision making by Reserve Bank of Australia (RBA) on interest rates, mortgage regulation via Australian Prudential Regulation Authority (APRA), funds for the construction of affordable and social housing (by agreement with the State Government and others), taxation and subsidies to the private rental sector (such as negative gearing for landlords, supporting build to rent investors and rent assistance payment to renters), funds to expand the community housing sector and various regulatory responsibilities such as the National Construction Code. The Commonwealth Government initiated the HomeBuilder program during the pandemic and provided financial grants to homeowners to either purchase homes or complete renovations. Over 29,000 applications were processed for properties across Queensland before the program closed in April 2021 (Australian Government 2023a).

Recently, in response to ongoing concerns about declining housing affordability but also the observed fall in housebuilding activity during 2022, the federal government announced a National Housing Accord. The Accord targeted the supply and affordability of Australian housing with an initial goal of delivering one million new homes over 5 years from 2024. It also included immediate and longer-term actions for several parties including the three spheres of government, institutional investors, the housing construction sector and community housing providers to support the delivery of more affordable homes (Australian Government 2022). The Commonwealth Government also proposed a Housing Australia Future Fund (HAFF) as a sustainable funding source for housing supply and service delivery. In association with the state governments and private financial institutions, the fund aspires to deliver 30,000 new social and affordable homes. The Commonwealth Government also announced an additional $350 m in funding for affordable housing and a new National Housing and Homelessness Action Plan (in development). To encourage housing supply, in the recent Federal budget, the Government announced taxation relief for ‘build to rent’ investors. This includes:

• - reducing the withholding tax rate, and

• - increasing the capital works tax deduction (depreciation) rate for newly constructed build-to-rent developments (Australian Government 2023).

In addition, the Commonwealth has established Housing Australia, which expands the remit of the National Housing Finance Investment Corporation, to facilitate and support the delivery of more social and affordable housing, and home ownership to more eligible home buyers (Australian Government 2023b). The National Supply and Affordability Council will advise Government on ways to increase housing supply and the long-standing Commonwealth-State National Housing and Homelessness Agreement will be re-negotiated. Additionally, the Commonwealth, State and Territory Governments fund a National Housing Research Program with an aim to ensure that new knowledge underpins policy in housing, homelessness, cities and related issues.

Queensland Government

The Queensland Government affects the resilience of the housing system through various legislative and regulatory powers as well as the provision and management of the State’s public housing and funding for community housing providers. The State guides local governments in their land use planning and prepares State Planning Policy and regional plans in association with local governments. The land use policies and plans have implications for land and housing supply. The Queensland Housing Strategy 2017–2027 is a ten-year plan to partner with the community housing and private sectors to deliver more social and affordable housing and transform the way that the State’s housing services are delivered. The strategy is delivered through the Housing Strategy Action Plan 2017–2020, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Action Plan 2019–2023 and the Housing and Homelessness Action Plan 2021–2025 (Queensland Government 2021).

In 2022, the Queensland Government held a Housing Summit with political, community and cross-sector representation to explore responses to the State’s housing crisis. The summit focused on an amalgamation of challenges including increased interstate migration, material and skill shortages in the construction industry, the impact of the Covid-19 policies on the property market, demographic changes (such as the shift towards smaller household sizes), and the impact of extreme weather event on the housing system, including floods. At the summit, it was announced that the Housing Investment Fund was doubled to $2 Billion to support the delivery of 5600 social and affordable homes by 2027. The summit generated several responses from the State Government including providing rental assistance, changing secondary dwellings provisions to extend their availability to non-household members, boosting Immediate Housing Response for Families funding package to support temporary emergency accommodation and homelessness support workers, provide after-hours outreach for rough-sleepers across five high-demand locations, increase the funding to emergency relief, and invest in food recovery and redistribution (Queensland Government 2022). Recently, the State announced that rent rises are restricted to once a year (increased from 6 monthly), land tax concessions will be available for build-to-rent projects and they acquired three retirement villages in SEQ to convert to housing.

Other housing system initiatives are new State funding to build the capacity of community housing providers, a Housing Delivery Board of Directors-General to implement the Housing Summit recommendations and a cross-sector Housing Round Table and Housing Supply Panel to provide advice to Government. An important policy shift in Queensland is a focus on partnering with a renewed community housing sector that includes State funding to enhance capability in that sector. There has been a transition in housing assistance, moving away from a focus on the provision of social housing to adopting more diversified approaches. This shift is marked by an increased reliance on assistance from the private market and a heightened rationing of access to social tenancies. The effectiveness of this change is uncertain, considering the deteriorating affordability and accessibility of housing in the Queensland market (Pawson et al. 2023). The State Government has a development agency to undertake large-scale residential developments, in association with the private sector. Economic Development Queensland (EDQ) has powers to designate Priority Development Areas (PDAs). At the time of writing, there were over 30 PDAs in the State, representing an ultimate new residential population of over 400,000 in greenfield suburban locations. Most of those new homes are in the SEQ region. The idea of the PDA is to ensure that the State can coordinate infrastructure, create development plans and approve development so that new master-planned suburbs are expedited to address housing supply and housing affordability pressures (DSDILGP 2022). As part of the Queensland Government response to the Housing Summit, the EDQ is claimed to have strengthened its capacity to deliver new housing for low-to-moderate income households.

The State regulates local government planning through the Planning Act 2016. That Act guides the preparation of local government planning schemes, including the incorporation of State and regional policy interests in local plans. The State Planning Policy states its intent as: diverse, accessible, and well-serviced housing, and land for housing, is provided and supports affordable housing outcomes. Local Governments must incorporate State Planning Policy and Regional Plan provisions in their land use planning. The Southeast Queensland Regional Plan is a statutory document that is prepared by the State and local governments. In August 2023, the Queensland Government released the draft ShapingSEQ: 2023 Update for community consultation. This draft plan is prefaced by a detailed discussion of the factors influencing the region’s liveability, housing affordability, vulnerability to climate change and urban development challenges, before introducing a number of new policy commitments targeting the housing crisis. These commitments include a requirement for local governments to prepare a Housing Supply Statement as well as a local target for affordable and social housing and dwelling diversity (Department of State Development, Infrastructure, Local Government and Planning 2023). These commitments build upon the requirements in the current iteration of the regional plan, which required local governments to meet agreed targets for greenfield and infill residential development (Department of Infrastructure, Local Government and Planning 2017).

It is notable that the tension between population growth, environmental protection, climate-responsiveness, climate safety and land supply for residential expansion is a challenge in SEQ. For example, the State Government’s extension of areas for koala habitat protection reduced the amount of greenfield land available for new residential development in some locations; and the Noosa Shire Council Mayor expressing serious concerns about ‘unrealistic’ population growth and density targets (Grimshaw 2023).

Local governments

The 12 local governments in the SEQ region have responsibility for planning and regulating residential development in their areas. The National Housing Accord includes the Local Government Association of Queensland as a partner in the delivery of social and affordable homes and this would be a new role for local governments in SEQ (Australian Government 2022). Local governments are sensitive to a general SEQ community preference for a singular suburban vision of detached homes. Local governments are often the site of resistance and conflict regarding proposals for higher-than-usual density housing development in local areas. This makes the sector vulnerable to policy decisions that promote the lower density, suburban form. For example, the Brisbane City Council introduced a policy to restrict new townhouses in the middle ring suburbs. To ensure housing supply in existing suburbs, Brisbane announced a suburban renewal strategy aiming to create high-density and mixed-use neighbourhoods in industrial locations,, through identifying land that is underutilised or strategically positioned, particularly those with nearby railway stations and the highest potential for delivering community benefits.

Methods

Employing qualitative methodologies, data were collected by conducting semi-structured interviews with 18 participants associated with the housing sector in SEQ. Ethics approval was granted by The University of Queensland Ethics Committee. Participants were invited from five groups: community, government, consultants, developers and peak housing bodies. Potential participants from each group were identified and invited to the research. A snowballing technique was used to identify and invite additional research participants. Interviews were conducted through video calls (Zoom) and lasted about one hour. They were digitally recorded, and then downloaded, de-identified and transcribed in full.

As illustrated in Table 1, research participants included 8 people from government, 4 from peak bodies and 3 from community sectors. In addition, 2 consultants and 1 developer were interviewed. Participants were in the ‘25–34’ to ‘55–64’ age groups and included 9 women and 9 men (refer to Table 1 for detailed demographic information about research participants).

Table 1. Demographic information of the research participants (n = 18).

Age
25–34	1
35–44	3
45–54	5
55–64	4
Not Known	5
Gender
Male	9
Female	9
Country of Birth
Australia	10
Others (UK, Denmark)	4
Not Known	4
Job Sector
Community	3
Government	8
Consultant	2
Developer	1
Peak Body	4
Years of Experience with Housing
1–5	2
6–10	2
16–20	4
21+	6
Not Known	4
Highest level of education
Graduate Certificate	3
Bachelor’s Degree	10
Master’s Degree	1
Not Known	4

Interview questions were in two parts. First, they focused on defining a resilient housing system and understanding the concepts of prevention and recovery. The second part centred around the SEQ context and sought to understand key challenges and opportunities to build and sustain a resilient housing system in the region. The period of the COVID-19 pandemic (2020–2022) was used to frame the discussions, and to provide a focus for participants’ reflections and insights. Figure 1 was presented to participants during the interviews to facilitate the discussion about resilient housing system, its components and the interrelationships between them. Participants were invited to refer to Figure 1, add missing elements (if any) and/or discuss different elements of a resilient housing system in the context of SEQ.

Interview data were analysed using NVivo 12. It is a qualitative data management and analysis software. Content analysis was employed to identify the presence, meanings, frequency and relationships of key themes in sustaining a resilient housing system in SEQ. Data analysis and identification and classification of themes were reviewed by more than one research team member to provide additional insights into the research. The process helped avoiding the ‘potential for lone researcher bias’ and ensured that data analysis and research findings were rigorous and systematic (Burnard et al. 2008, 431).

An analysis of the interviews highlighted key themes that were frequently highlighted by research participants for building a resilient housing system in SEQ. These are discussed below in no order of priority.

Findings: defining a resilient housing system

Research participants reinforced the importance of understanding housing as a system of interconnected elements and acknowledging its complexity. They associated the concept of resilient housing to the system’s ability to absorb shocks and its capacity to adapt and retain its basic functions (see the supporting literature (Anderies, Janssen, and Ostrom 2004; Folke 2006; Nicol and Knoepfel 2014; Walker et al. 2006)). A resilient housing system operated in the public interest, responded to ‘place’ and was open to learning and evolving, to better respond to the housing needs of the community. Housing policies thus needed to shift from a focus on controlling the change to managing the capacity of the housing system to cope with, adapt to and shape changes (see the supporting literature (Berkes, Colding, and Folke 2008; Smit and Wandel 2006)).

Research participants also frequently highlighted the significance of developing an equitable housing system and the need for understanding and acknowledging housing as a human right and a foundation to manage other life stresses. As Respondent 14b (Government) noted, ‘ … a resilient housing system will provide people … with a home and the security that comes with having a home’. However, the overriding view was that, in reality, housing is generally viewed as a commodity, which undermines the broader role of housing as social infrastructure. This view is also supported by the literature. For example, when outlining their case for the urgent reform of the Australian housing system, Pawson, Milligan, and Yates (2020, 342) noted that ‘the conceptualisation of housing primarily as an investable asset rather than a social good has become deeply embedded in this nation of housing investors (whether as owner-occupiers or landlords)’. The authors hoped for a more balanced Australian housing system with greater equity and choice between private ownership, private rental and social rental tenures. Similarly, Mortensen and Seabrooke (2008, 317) observed the Australian residential property market ‘at the extreme end of commodification, exhibiting high risk, high stakes (considering that the home is two-thirds of family assets), and a propensity to accumulate ever more debt’. Unlike most Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) countries that support owner occupiers by providing tax preference to their mortgage interest payments, the Australian system instead gives landlords incentives to invest in rental properties (Gruis and Nieboer 2007; Mortensen and Seabrooke 2008). As Respondent 8 (Community) described, housing commodification has resulted in the instability and vulnerability of the system:

… the bottom line is that housing has been commodified, housing is being seen as I think what you can trade and flip and speculate on. And what that’s creating is people who can leverage against what they already have competing against people who’ve got nothing and can’t leverage. It’s unstable … So, whilst we’re still in this process of allowing people to create wealth through accruing, speculating and flipping houses, we’re not going to solve the housing issue, particularly when the Commonwealth government won’t intervene in the market through increased social housing … 

The following sections discuss key themes highlighted by participants in their definition of a resilient housing system, grouped into ‘prevention’ and ‘recovery’.

Prevention

Research participants underlined key elements of a resilient housing system, in terms of its capacity for prevention. The preventative aspect of resiliency relates to the vulnerability of the system and its ability to avoid poor outcomes when shocks occur. It is associated with how the system can expect, and subsequently cope with a disturbance through mitigating the impacts (Nicol and Knoepfel 2014).

Participants associated the concept of resilient housing to the system’s responsiveness. A responsive housing system was found to understand demographics to develop plans and policies that address the broad range of its users and accommodate their constantly changing needs, as they move through life cycles or deal with shocks and stresses. The system was required to be supportive of vulnerable people and ensure housing security for all. Responsiveness of a housing system was particularly related to the pipeline of supply. The institutional model for delivering and managing housing supply was found to be important. Planning processes needed to focus on understanding current and future housing needs to get the broader supply and demand equation and diversity of product right. For example, Respondent 6 (Consulting) noted:

If there’s a supply issue on the horizon – it’s not a freight train that just arrives all of a sudden, it’s been coming down that track for a while. You should be able to monitor and see those trends and have that horizon view and tools in place.

Decisive political leadership and long-term government initiatives and interventions were also found to be essential. Participants argued the need for a nationally coordinated approach for housing supply and creating an optimal context in which social and affordable housing could be achieved through a variety of mechanisms and partnerships. In addition, as interviews suggested, the broader planning system needed to keep people safe and minimise risks from shocks (e.g. through flood policies and development controls). Future proofing was another key element, as participants frequently acknowledged that developing a resilient housing system requires learning from previous disruptions, and a dedication to review and revise planning schemes, legislations and policies. Respondent 4 (Government) noted:

… no one’s really talking about the inconvenient truth, which is the legacy development that has happened for hundreds of years. Brisbane is a great case in point – almost the whole place is pretty much built on the river flats. Unless you are going to say as government, we are going to buy everything and just put, as you know, flood mitigation park areas, which is just never going to happen.

Resilient housing system was also discussed in the context of housing design and the need to adapt and respond to the varying needs of residents. Participants underlined the importance of flexible, multi-purpose housing, as a place for not only living, but also working and studying as evidenced during the Covid-19 pandemic.

Recovery

Research participants also highlighted core elements of a resilient housing system, in terms of its capacity for recovery. Recovery refers to how the system reacts once a disturbance occurs and whether it can return to a desired state (Nicol and Knoepfel 2014), as discussed below.

As interviews suggested, federal, state and local governments play a key role in the recovery stage, through partnership (between different levels of government and with various non-government organisations and communities), leadership and funding. Furthermore, a resilient housing system was viewed to have the capacity to design and deliver a diverse range of responses, at different scales and timeframes. As discussed by participants, immediate responses require fast-tracking approaches that cut through traditional pathways and are more likely to include monetary levers (e.g. Emergency Hardship Assistance (EHA) grant available by Queensland Government to help people affected by a disaster to get food, clothing, medical supplies and temporary accommodation). Longer-term responses were also required which focus on mechanisms for transition to more sustainable outcomes for communities, such as permanently relocating communities from high-risk areas that are prone to extreme flood or bushfire events and not putting new development in vulnerable locations.

A key challenge in delivering effective and timely responses was found to be the time lag between policy, planning and delivery of projects. Therefore, there needs to be some flexibility in regulatory frameworks for temporary relief when shocks occur. This necessitates the capacity of the system to amend regulations and activate different rules to provide faster relief for those in housing stress (e.g. enable people to rent secondary dwellings, increase minimum density in certain locations). The capacity of a system for effective recovery also depends on a redundancy built into the system, such as extra housing capacity to put at risk people in temporary accommodation. Thus, government investments into a greater number of social and other forms of transitional housing were found to be essential.

Reflections on the Covid-19 pandemic in southeast Queensland

When prompted to reflect on the performance of the SEQ housing system during the pandemic, participants described a housing system which managed to operate through waves of economic, political and social change (prompted by the global health emergency), whilst at the same time responding to large-scale rainfall and flood events which affected the region. The timing of these events can be seen in Figure 2.

Figure 2. 2020–2023 Timeline of the pandemic and natural events (SEQ).

Research participants highlighted how their understanding of the complexity of the housing system evolved, as the interconnected nature of the drivers, institutional settings and outcomes embedded in the system were exposed to scrutiny over the course of the pandemic. The three issues of greatest concern for participants were the lack of housing supply (in locations of demand) due to a range of factors, including land, labour and material constraints, housing affordability, and the shortfall of social and affordable housing.

Overwhelmingly, participants were concerned about the current inability of the housing system to meet the demand for social and affordable housing, due to a longstanding under-investment in new stock across the State. Research participants shared stories of encountering people who were affected by increased rental prices being at the mercy of the housing market, and the inability of individuals and families to access social and affordable housing within their communities. For those residents in flood-affected locations, the compounding nature of the pandemic and flood damage to residential properties led to high-stress situations.

It’s crisis, short term housing. So there’s the added stress of ‘I don’t know how long I’m going to be here for, I can’t focus on these other issues in my life that are affecting my housing tenancy sustainment because I’m concerned that the roof [over] my head may not be there tomorrow or next week.’ … we need to work to a ‘housing-first model’. (Respondent 1, Community)

There were two State Government-led responses to the first wave of the Covid-19 pandemic that are now recognised as cross-sectoral collaboration and innovations in the SEQ housing system. While time limited, the two responses were identified by many research participants as demonstrations of a potential for resilience in the housing system. At the same time, interviews highlighted that Australian society’s approach to addressing housing issues is often short-term, triggered primarily by crises, making it unsustainable. The Covid-19 pandemic responses led by State Government explained below aimed at tackling homelessness and housing issues during the peak of the crisis, while homelessness persisted once the immediacy of the emergency subsided. These are discussed below.

The Queensland Covid (Homelessness) response

In response to the perceived risk of the Covid-19 pandemic to homeless people, the Queensland Government developed an eight-point, $24.7 million plan. The eight-point plan included:

1. Safe accommodation for vulnerable and homeless Queenslanders needing to self-isolate

2. Brokerage funds for specialist homelessness services to provide crisis accommodation

3. Increased outreach capacity for homelessness service providers

4. Funds to cover replacement staff

5. Cleaning of shelters and funds to buy cleaning equipment and PPE

6. Accommodation assistance for vulnerable people requiring self-isolation

7. Enhancing the home assist secure program for older people and people living with disability for essential supplies and services; and

8. Expanding access to private housing support for people facing economic hardship from the virus (Queensland Government 2020).

Importantly, the plan demonstrated agility in the system as it promoted communication, coordination and innovation in the sharing of roles, funds and data across government and non-government sectors in the housing system (Institute of Social Science Research 2021). The plan had several features of a resilient housing system including:

• o Cross-sector collaboration - The Queensland Government released funds to specialist homelessness services for them to broker accommodation and support for homeless people. This funding was delivered to key organisations who could fund others to find and furnish accommodation.

• o Communication- weekly homeless sector telelinks across the State with over 80 attendees distributed information and shared ideas about the response.

• o Openness to share and give resources between the non-Government housing support services and the State Government and others (such as private accommodation providers).

• o There were support services for people housed in temporary accommodation.

• o Role shifts – the Department of Housing officers were taken out of their usual duties to join the response.

• o Innovations such as Head leasing was used to leverage private housing stock to accommodate homeless people with non-Government service support, during the crisis.

• o Better data sharing and linking within and across authorities, as well as between and within government and non-government not-for-profit sectors to support a person-centred response (Mason, Moran, and Earles 2020).

This coordinated response was highlighted by participants, from across all sectors, as successful demonstration of government, community and private housing providers coming together and deliver an ‘out of the box’ intervention using available resources. As Respondent 6 (Consulting) noted, ‘that disruption definitely gave the opportunity to dial shift how we deal with homeless and social housing delivery … The system really did focus on that end and responded’. However, the key concern is the sustainability of Government support and initiatives and a need for constant evaluation of the implementation stage and monitoring the progress. As the Queensland Audit Office (2022) notes the Queensland Government has historically failed to monitor and evaluate its program outcomes.

The Queensland rental tenancies response

As research participants noted, at the beginning of the pandemic, the high level of uncertainty within the government and the community translated into concerns about economic slowdowns and pressures in the housing market. This uncertainty had an impact on consumer activity in SEQ, with sales in greenfield communities falling dramatically in some locations (Respondent 15, Developer), but supply continuing to be provided in others (Respondent 9, Government).

The removal of travel restrictions and the re-opening of the Queensland border in January 2022, led to a surge in interstate and intrastate migration into an already constrained housing market, with declining availability and affordability in both established and greenfield communities. Those seeking to access affordable rentals were most impacted and were being displaced and/or unable to find suitable accommodation.

People go into rental inspections where [there are] 60 people. I know some people basically gave real estate agents a signed contract for rent and said ‘whenever something comes up, here is my contract. I don’t even need to see it.’ All those people, I think are very stressed … on the Sunshine Coast we’re telling certain members of the community ‘you’re gonna have to move, you actually can’t afford to live here anymore’. (Respondent 6, Consulting)

In response to these concerns, the State Government initiated a package of reforms to stabilise tenancies and implement the National Cabinet decision for a moratorium on evictions for Covid-related rent arrears. Like the Queensland Covid Response to Homelessness (outlined above), the Rental Tenancies initiatives were rapid, coordinated and mobilised action across different sectors within the housing system: Government, tenants and landlords, and their advocates.

The Residential Tenancies Response provided several time-limited Covid-19 measures to keep people safe and in their homes, support and protect the residential rental sector and deliver improved stability in Queensland’s rental market. The six-month eviction moratorium and other measures implemented to support it ceased to apply after September 2020. Similar actions in reaction to 2021 lockdowns were comparatively light and inefficient as discussed by Pawson and Lilley (2021). Other protections such as allowing renters experiencing domestic and family violence to end their tenancies quickly, applied until April 2021 (Institute for Social Science Research 2021).

A Post-Implementation Review conducted by the Institute for Social Science Research (ISSR) (in association with ARTD consultants) found evidence across the data sources (including stakeholder interviews) that the Residential Tenancies Response was timely, appropriate and implemented efficiently by the State Government within the context of a dynamic and challenging macroeconomic, health and political environment. The mix of measures was appropriately designed to keep people safe in their homes and mitigate the economic impacts of the pandemic (ISSR 2021).

These two examples display the potential of the housing system to be resilient and the central roles of government leadership, cross-sectoral collaboration, person-centred initiatives, place-based responses (for the Homelessness Response) and relational practice. The first wave of the Covid-19 pandemic was underpinned by agreement on the problem and a shared sense of urgency to rapidly solve the problem. Most interviewees were conscious of the need to learn from these crisis responses and to build resilience in the SEQ housing system.

Supercharged housing market

Research participants frequently highlighted that the impact of the Federal Government’s national HomeBuilder program on the regional housing system should have been predicted. As consumers were able to access the HomeBuilder Grant, developers were able to make sales, but due to a range of events and limitations were unable to deliver the housing, particularly for fixed-price contracts. Delivery was further impacted by the 2022 rainfall and flood event which affected over 500,000 people across SEQ. The limited housing construction workforce capacity, constraints in the supply of construction materials and the relatively small scale of the residential construction sector were identified as limiting the housing industry’s ability to respond in a timely manner.

From a supply perspective, the HomeBuilder initiative connected into … places like Logan and Moreton [Bay] and Ipswich. It has had a really perverse outcome, where southern markets are desperate to get into Southeast Queensland. So, demand is high, the ability to deliver stock on the ground is low because of availability of land for developers. But the pressure for all Southeast Queensland planning authorities to get the delivery of new housing estates … created a perfect storm through the stimulus packages. I often wonder what would happen if we just left it alone. It probably would have just been a nice, more accessible market where people had better access to make the decisions, they needed to make to stay safe through the pandemic. (Respondent 4, Government)

The issues weren’t limited to workforce and land supply constraints, as several participants reported on the impact of trade sanctions due to the Russia – Ukraine conflict affecting the supply of timber, together with the cost of fuel on project programs and costs. Participants identified these challenges as underpinning their understanding of the interconnected nature of national strategies and regional housing outcomes. This is one of several lessons on the external and internal factors that influenced housing and residential land development during the pandemic.

Sustaining a resilient housing system in southeast Queensland

The interviews identified 10 key priorities for sustaining a resilient housing system in SEQ. These priorities contribute to a shift in the current perception of housing as a commodity to housing as a human right and focus on the role of housing as a social infrastructure to accommodate the varying needs of residents, particularly those in need of more support, including people living in insecure and unstable housing conditions. It is important to note that a number of these priorities are now reflected (in whole or in part) in the draft ShapingSEQ: 2023 Update.

Taking a comprehensive approach

There was broad agreement by participants that the current policy approach to housing in SEQ had fallen short and a refreshed response was required. The new strategy should be comprehensive and address all elements of the regional housing system as described in this paper. Developed by the Queensland Government, the strategy needs to engage public, private and community sectors in the delivery of housing. It should look beyond the supply of land and housing (the primary lens of regional planning policy at the time of the interviews) and seek to identify opportunities to strengthen and address weaknesses in the current housing system at both the local and regional scale. Delivery targets for affordable and social housing (a noted gap in the interviews) need to be at the core of the strategy. The strategy development process also needs to include a mix of stakeholders to ensure the ‘lived experiences’ of consumers from all sectors and markets are considered.

Targets for social and affordable housing for individual local government areas, as well as proposals for place-based governance arrangements are detailed in the revised draft regional plan. An investment package of sufficient scope and scale to address the shortfall in housing across all markets and sectors is however needed to underpin the regional strategy.

Statesmanship, collaboration, demonstration and cooperative action

Research participants reported on resistance by elected representatives to the inclusion of affordable housing in development projects. Respondent 13 (Consulting) described this resistance as a ‘fundamental barrier, almost philosophical objection’. A sustained program of demonstration projects and education is required to engage elected officials and their constituents.

We went to see the local councilor who basically turned around and said ‘I don’t want to see any affordable housing in my area [ward]’. I was like, oh really. Yeah, ‘we don’t have any affordable housing. We don’t need it’. (Respondent 13, Consulting)

There was broad agreement across the participants that collaborative and strategic leadership is required to build resilience in the SEQ housing system. Given the interconnections in the housing system, cooperative action and investment would be required by national, state and local governments; as well as other relevant sectors and stakeholders.

I’m probably just describing a utopia where you’d have really strong national leadership in a way that coordinated all of the different other inputs and then engaged every single stakeholder who touches any driver or influences any process or outcome relating to housing. It’s going to take an absolute village of stakeholders to do everything they already do but optimally for housing supply and affordability. And we’re all going to have to meet at the fence. It’s going to take that kind of moral and formal leadership, but also inspirational leadership … (Respondent 5, Peak Body)

Understanding local needs and narratives

Several participants discussed the importance of developing a community-driven vision or narrative to shape local or suburban-level housing policy. A local housing strategy needs to be informed by how people would like to live, and the environmental constraints and assets of a particular place or community. Planning should tackle community concerns about development and change.

We often are encouraged to view the housing system almost at times without people. So there’s a very technocratic views of houses as physical products that rise and become useful and obsolescent over time, depending on what society needs at any given time. And that society as a collective, not individuals. (Respondent 10, Government)

The current regional scale of housing policy, and the associated measurement and monitoring programs could be inhibiting local housing supply. As a result of a lack of collecting and reporting information about local housing (sub-markets), the regional reporting might cloud local realities. Disaggregating data to the local scale could support scenario testing and present a more accurate picture of the local supply situations and highlight areas for specific place-based intervention.

… I just think we’re too ingrained in the process of dealing with measuring at the regional level. We should be measuring more tightly at the local level, putting more accountability and responsibility on the local level to deliver housing need, but also across multiple dimensions of need. (Respondent 13, Consulting)

Policy and delivery mechanisms

The State’s planning system was seen as overly complex and requiring attention. The complexity of the operational environment for the community housing sector was particularly highlighted. If the government wants the community and development sectors to partner, and to accelerate housing supply; then policy and processes need to be streamlined. Capability within the sector also needs to be built to ensure community housing providers are able to operate at scale and across different markets and products. Since the time of this research (2022), the Queensland Treasury has announced a sizeable investment in a capability building program for the community housing sector. This investment signals a commitment to build the community housing sector so that it can partner with governments and others to grow the supply of affordable housing.

Participants referred to generations of planning schemes, local regulations and stakeholder-informed strategies that have delivered the region’s built form, home purchase and rental product mix. There was shared agreement that a refreshed approach to statutory planning and regulation was required through ‘fit for purpose’ regulation. It is interesting to note that a number of policy options proposed by participants are identified in draft regional plan and are currently being considered through the consultation process. These options include:

• - Value capture mechanisms

• - Nontangible benefit assessments

• - Inclusionary zoning

• - Linking transport planning and housing

• - Variety of funding and delivery models

• - Secondary dwellings

• - Strategic land banking linked to infrastructure provision (to avoid lags)

• - Initiatives to tackle homelessness

Better understanding of the rental sector

The pandemic, and the growing housing crisis, highlighted the structural weaknesses in the private rental sector in SEQ. There is little understanding of how the private rental market operates who are the investors and their risk profile. The planning system, and associated local and regional plans are silent on any challenges or implications arising from the profile and stability of different housing tenures in different locations. There are some communities with high rates of renting household that are more vulnerable to housing stresses. For example, in 2021, 58.4% of households in Yarrabilba (a large master planned community in outer SEQ)were renting their homes, compared with the Queensland average of 33.1% (Australian Bureau of Statistics 2021)

A number of participants discussed the need for policy and regulatory reform to more clearly address the needs of households living in the private rental sector. Participants from the community housing sector, highlighted an urgent need to address the ‘power imbalance’ for tenants by strengthening tenancy rights to support long-term tenancies, and avoid evictions due to sale of properties. The impact of leases being broken or not renewed, was recognised as being highly disadvantageous for many individuals and families.

Social and affordable housing

Despite numerous campaigns by advocates in the community and housing service sector, the lack of attention to social and affordable housing by government was highlighted by participants as a critical weakness in the SEQ system. Participants agreed that the current policy approach relied heavily on the private rental market (and to a lesser extent, more affordable home purchase) to meet the needs of low-income households. The outcome being a housing system that failed to understand and anticipate either the demand or supply drivers or barriers for a significant part of the community. Interventions and investment are required to ensure social and affordable housing is addressed as a matter of urgency.

Any new stock should be well-designed and demonstrate quality, inclusionary design, sustainability and energy efficiency. It is important to ensure social and affordable housing is mixed throughout communities rather than located at the edges of the region. As Respondent 9 (Government) noted, policy and investment remained focussed on home ownership as the preferred outcome for communities.

… we are so focussed on [putting in place incentives for] single detached first homeowners and investors entering in the market … [rather than supporting long term rental as an option]  … some people will be renters forever. The security of that tenure for them is important (Respondent 9, Government).

Resourcing specialist housing services

While the success of the pandemic homelessness response in SEQ was applauded by participants, there was concern that there continues to be a ‘heavy expectation’ that specialist homelessness services will be able to lean-in and respond to current and future emergencies. The users of these services often have high and complex needs, requiring comprehensive health and community responses and specialist practitioners and these are not generally coordinated in a way to sustain and stabilise a tenancy.

[the homelessness sector] is like an elastic-band – how far can you get an elastic band to stretch before it breaks? Because it was an already stretched elastic band, just so you know just responding to current needs let alone being hammered with such huge need … (Respondent 2, Peak Body)

Governance, culture and political risk

Participants spoke of the need for leadership by government, business sector and community to shift community perception of housing as a commodity, to housing as a human right. The current public commentary on the ‘housing crisis’ focuses on the ‘hip-pocket’ impacts for homeowners and renters and failed to address the underlying economic and social drivers in the housing system which are locking-out parts of the community from secure, long-term housing options. Participants highlighted the need to shift from seeing housing as wealth generation to a human right and necessity for people and also stressed the importance of tackling the different levels of understanding within the community about the growing gap between household incomes, job security and housing costs.

Reshaping the National Housing and Homelessness Agreement was identified as one mechanism to force change. The 2023 Federal budget announced a number of reforms including a Housing Australia Future Fund (HAFF); partnerships across sectors to grow the supply of social and affordable housing; tax concessions for build-to-rent developments and others.

The current model could be described as ‘closed’, with all activity occurring within a siloed institutional frameworks, controlled by a limited set of actors. Participants highlighted the need to better understand the financial and institutional frameworks which shape the housing system. This lack of understanding influences governments’ appetite to engage in new ideas, and at its most concerning, limits the funding envelope available to build and provide homes. Other frameworks and institutional barriers and enablers discussed included tax reform, building codes and regulations, insurance and risk, as well as the capabilities within the community and private sectors.

Participants from different sectors reported the need to address the ‘politics of provision’ in current and future housing. There were two parts to this concept raised by the participants:

1. There is a need to understand the different ideological positions within government, between ministers and departments; and the affect this has on the ‘institutional model for how you deliver and respond’ (Respondent 11, Government).

2. The reliance on greenfield developments to deliver required new supply at the expense of tackling the community resistance to infill housing project, was identified by participants from the development sector as a weak response.

Future climate and resilience to natural events

The housing systems also need to be cognisant of the changing climate and its impact on design of neighbourhood and homes. The shifts in rainfall patterns, flood events, severe storm and ‘pocket storms’, land slips as well as significant heat should all factor in the design of new places, and redevelopment of existing communities. Participants discussed the differing impacts of natural events such as the 2020 hailstorm in Springfield and 2022 floods across SEQ. The hailstorms affected 1700 properties in Ipswich City local government area and residents were still out of their homes some 18 months later (Respondent 9, Government). The impact of the floods was far-reaching, and inter-generational.

Flood prone areas have some of the region’s poorest occupants, and take the risk of not having flood insurance and rely of the goodwill of governments and communities to help them out every ten years or so. (Respondent 9, Government)

The current options of Government buy-outs and relocations need to be balanced with the social impact of disconnecting residents from local networks and neighbourhoods.

The importance of resilient design

Design of housing and neighbourhoods was identified as a possible asset or constraint to achieving climate resilience. Established neighbourhoods with larger lot sizes, smaller building footprints and opportunities for natural ventilation may perform better in a warming climate. In comparison, more recent suburban developments with smaller lots, larger building footprints and higher reliance on air conditioning for cooling may be less resilient into the future. Participant 12 (Government) described that the market is led by consumer sentiment and focused on amenity rather than resilience:

Consumers will say ‘I’d rather have a double garage and flood once in a while, than include climate issues in the design’. The development sector won’t act in advance of the consumer demand. ‘They’re not asking for that at the moment, so we won’t provide it’.

As research participants noted, there is a myth that architecturally designed houses which deliver high sustainability ratings are only available to people on high incomes. New community and social housing stock in the region is engaging architects in their design and creating climate-responsive and neighbourhood-responsive homes as a result.

Discussion

The participants in this research represent sectors that might traditionally disagree, yet there is agreement that the inherent contest in the housing system between housing as a commodity and housing as a human right undermines its resilience. Further, the housing system should be seen as multi-dimensional, multi-sectoral and interdependent. There is not a static or monolithic ‘housing system’ but in reality, there are multiple, dynamic and at times competing (sub)systems, including government-funded public and community housing, private home ownership, private rental, supported accommodation for at-risk groups, homelessness services and alternative private accommodation models (e.g. Airbnb). This aspiration and consensus, however, is not matched by current policy and practice, which is characterised by participants as siloed and uncoordinated.

The complexity of the housing system evident in our research reflects the broader messy and iterative reality of public policy systems and their interaction with the operation of economic markets (Committee for Economic Development of Australia 2019). These systems are characterised by institutional ‘adhocracy’ leading to confusion, conflict and widespread turf battles between various stakeholders (Parsons 1995).

From this perspective, the representation (Figure 1) at the outset of this paper illustrates the main components of a housing system, although, it does not fully address the dynamism of the system, as described by study participants. There is a need to map the housing system (and its sub-systems) to include the flows, relationships and interconnections within the system/s that can build its resilience. In the SEQ context, different parts of the system and its various sub-systems are tentatively engaging to address immediate housing supply shortages. Can that effort be harnessed, sustained and directed to transforming the housing system to build its resilience based on the value that housing is a human right?

Notwithstanding this diversity and competition, there is also a shared sense of urgency to practically address housing availability and affordability and to grow the supply of social and affordable housing in the region. Respondents promoted State Government as critical to a resilient housing system in the region and they identified State Government’s roles as leading a comprehensive strategy for cooperative action, across sectors, including people with lived experience of homelessness. The strategy would include investment, partnership, innovation, legislative and planning reform, local narratives and importantly, respond to the region’s climate risks. Critically, the strategy must be actioned through effective governance that better aligns centralised policy making with local implementation. The Queensland Housing Investment Growth Initiative (QHIGI), originally a product of the Queensland Housing Strategy 2017-2017, which was then significantly enhanced following the 2022 Queensland Housing Summit may provide a longer-term investment platform for a more effective and integrated housing strategy (Pawson et al. 2023, 41).

The case studies in the research show that there is agility in parts of the housing system. The hopeful elements of those case studies are the willingness and ability to work together in new ways for the shared purpose of providing housing to vulnerable residents. While the case studies occurred in a time of crisis (the Covid pandemic), it is possible to draw on their lessons to build enduring resilience in the housing system.

Research by The University of Queensland in 2020 and 2021 which reviewed the Queensland Government’s responses to the impact of Covid on renters and people experiencing homelessness, in conjunction with Australian government income support measures, suggested some short-term agility in the housing system (Reddel et al. 2021). For example, an Immediate Response Fund (IRF) was established as a key measure of the Queensland Covid-19 Homelessness Response to provide immediate accommodation and service outreach for people sleeping rough and at risk of homelessness, alongside other measures for people living in inappropriate supported accommodation based on congregate models. Several time-limited Covid-19 related measures such as a moratorium on evictions for rent arrears and removing barriers for people experiencing domestic and family violence from ending their tenancy were also introduced as part of the Queensland Residential Tenancies Response. The combination of government intervention, regulation and financial support, enhanced and integrated service delivery, backed by private sector and local community involvement was critical. For a short period of time, secure housing was a human right and not purely a market-driven product. However, as discussed earlier in this paper these measures were relatively short lived and did not address the more structural and systemic factors impacting on the supply of affordable housing in SEQ. As Pawson et al. (2023) have highlighted rental vacancy rates and social housing availability were already trending down before the impact of the Covid-19 pandemic. While the pandemic presented many housing-related challenges, Queensland housing system performance has been deteriorating for many years (Pawson et al. 2023, 12). Worthwhile and evidence-based measures implemented during the pandemic could not address declining housing affordability, surging house rents, lagging social housing construction and increasing homelessness.¹

The tenure (in) balance in SEQ reflects the housing spectrum across Australia with relatively high levels of home ownership (including mortgagees) compared to private, community housing and public rentals. The housing system needs to be responsive to the many dynamic societal and policy challenges impacting on SEQ including rapid expansion of urban population, increasing social disparities, limitations in public finances, a surge in homelessness, diminishing housing affordability, ageing population, climate crisis, displaced and mobile global populations, digital disruption, politicisation of housing and various other factors.

An adaptive and integrated housing system for SEQ needs to engage the broader community through a more joined-up policy making and governance that authorises place-based community driven strategies to integrate the planning, design, financing and delivery stages, of social and affordable housing with other community needs. A more place-based strategy can also address an often-forgotten part of an adaptive housing system – better integration of the land use planning system with housing planning, and the delivery of universal services and social infrastructure.

Conclusion

Applying systems thinking approach, this research sought to answer the question ‘How can the housing system in SEQ be designed to cope with and recover from shocks and stresses such as the Covid-19 pandemic without risking the wellbeing of residents?’ Employing qualitative methodologies, we collected data by conducting semi-structured interviews with 18 participants from five groups: community, government, consultants, developers and peak housing bodies. Research participants were invited to reflect on key components of a resilient housing system and their interrelationships, considering the whole system, rather than looking at its parts in isolation.

This research highlighted the importance of understanding housing as a multi-dimensional and multi-sectoral system and acknowledging the interconnection and interdependencies in the system. Policy makers and academics need to break down siloed thinking by considering the whole system, rather than its separate parts and focus on developing an equitable housing system and acknowledging housing as a human right, not a commodity. SEQ housing system currently lacks an understanding of local needs and narratives, particularly of the rental sector and urgently needs to address the ‘power imbalance’ for tenants. Participants were concerned about the current inability of the SEQ housing system to meet the demand for social and affordable housing, due to a longstanding under-investment in new stock. Rather than relying on reactive mechanisms, there needs to be a commitment from governments to work with other sectors to take a comprehensive approach and strategically plan for proactive and resilient-led policies to address current issues and prepare for future shocks. This research informs three different levels of government to better understand what makes a complex housing system more resilient and helps structure resilient housing policy and strategy development.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Additional information

Funding

This work was supported by University of Queensland.

Notes

1 https://theconversation.com/the-post-covid-crisis-hit-queensland-hardest-with-100-000-households-needing-low-cost-housing-heres-how-it-can-recover-199514