Australia must treat housing as a human right: Former State Supreme Court judge

Original Article ↗ Hacker News Discussion ↗

Calls to recognise housing as a human right in Australia are colliding with a severe affordability and homelessness crisis driven by rapid population growth, constrained housing supply and politically entrenched NIMBY zoning. Commenters debate whether rights-based language helps, or whether the core problems are high immigration relative to building capacity, under-resourced public housing, and a tax and financial system that rewards property investors and politicians who own multiple homes. Proposals range from loosening planning rules and curbing negative gearing to expanding social housing and limiting profit from basic shelter, but many are pessimistic that vested interests will allow meaningful reform.

Role of courts and timing of the judge’s stance

  • Some question where this view was “decades ago” and why it wasn’t advanced while the judge was on the bench.
  • Others respond that judges rule on cases brought before them and avoid overt political campaigning to preserve impartiality.
  • There’s a view that people, including judges, may shift positions later in life.

Housing as a human right vs. traditional rights

  • Supporters cite the Universal Declaration of Human Rights: adequate housing is part of the right to an adequate standard of living.
  • Critics argue “positive rights” (to housing, healthcare) require coercive resource transfers and contradict classical, “negative” rights (freedom from interference).
  • Debate over whether such rights mean “a free house” or simply “reasonably affordable, stable housing.”
  • Skepticism about enforceability: unclear if high prices can be litigated as human-rights violations.

Supply, migration, zoning, and geography

  • Strong consensus that Australia has a housing supply–demand imbalance, worsened by high net migration (often compared to adding a “Canberra” each year).
  • Claims that post‑COVID migration spikes (up to ~600k/year) outpaced construction capacity, causing homelessness even among full-time workers.
  • Zoning is described as hyper‑local and NIMBY‑dominated, restricting density.
  • Large “empty” land is mostly uninhabitable; people cluster near coastal cities with jobs and infrastructure.

Public housing and the rental market

  • Disagreement over whether Australia has “extensive” or “very little” public housing; one source notes stock at a 40‑year low.
  • Public housing is said to be under-resourced, with long‑ignored maintenance leading to uninhabitable dwellings and shrinking stock.
  • Others highlight operational problems: costly accessibility requirements, mismanagement, vandalism by a minority of tenants, and rorting.
  • Sharp divide over private landlords: some see multiple-property ownership and profit from shelter as immoral; others argue profit is necessary to incentivize building and renting.
  • Ideas raised: remove negative gearing, increase capital gains tax, expand social housing, limit profit to cost‑recovery rents, or shift more stock to public/nonprofit models. Critics warn this could crush rental supply or recreate low‑quality “projects.”

Money, politics, and vested interests

  • Many see politicians’ property portfolios and investor lobbies as structurally blocking reform.
  • Claims that foreign buyers and money launderers exploit weak anti‑money‑laundering rules in real estate, though official data on foreign share of purchases is disputed.
  • Some argue governments deliberately keep demand above supply via high migration and constrained development to protect existing owners’ wealth.

Affordability, homelessness, and lived experience

  • Reports of rents doubling post‑COVID and median renters in cities spending ~60–70% of net income on housing.
  • Counter-argument: at national minimum wage, basic units may still be mathematically “affordable,” especially outside top cities; skeptics respond that real competition makes such options scarce.
  • Broad concern about a looming or current homelessness crisis, especially for younger cohorts, with a sense that governments will blame markets and avoid meaningful change.

Broader social and political commentary

  • Several comments criticize Australian political culture, media influence, and a perceived national complacency and short‑termism.
  • Some express hope in younger voters, more minor parties, and examples from other countries (e.g., Vienna, Singapore) where large-scale social or public housing works reasonably well.