Review of the
National Affordable
Housing Agreement
Performance
Reporting Framework
1
National Affordable Housing Agreement – Review of the Performance
Reporting Framework
Review of the National Affordable Housing Agreement Performance Reporting Framework .............. 1
1. Executive Summary ............................................................................................................................. 4
1.1 The Review of the National Affordable Housing Agreement ....................................................... 4
1.2 Findings and Recommendations ................................................................................................... 5
1.2.1 Measurement of Performance Against Outcomes – Performance Indicators ...................... 5
1.2.2 Performance Benchmarks, Outputs and Data Collection .................................................... 12
4.2 Outputs ....................................................................................................................................... 14
1.3 Conclusion ................................................................................................................................... 14
2. Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 22
2.1 The National Affordable Housing Agreement............................................................................. 22
2.2 The NAHA Performance Reporting Framework .......................................................................... 23
2.3 The COAG Reform Council’s Reports on the NAHA .................................................................... 26
2.4 The Heads of Treasuries Review ................................................................................................. 26
2.5 Review of the NAHA .................................................................................................................... 27
2.6 Review Method ........................................................................................................................... 28
2.7 Structure of the Review Report .................................................................................................. 28
3. Measurement of Performance Against Outcomes – Performance Indicators ................................. 30
3.1 Outcome A: People who are homeless or at risk of homelessness achieve sustainable housing
and social inclusion ........................................................................................................................... 30
3.1.1 Issues .................................................................................................................................... 30
3.1.2 Working Group Considerations............................................................................................ 31
3.1.3 Findings and Recommendations .......................................................................................... 33
3.2 Outcome B: People are able to rent housing that meets their needs ....................................... 34
3.2.1 Issues .................................................................................................................................... 34
2
3.2.2 Working Group Considerations............................................................................................ 35
3.2.3 Findings and Recommendations .......................................................................................... 36
3.3 Outcome C: People can purchase affordable housing ................................................................ 37
3.3.1 Issues .................................................................................................................................... 37
3.3.2 Working Group Considerations............................................................................................ 38
3.3.3 Findings and Recommendations .......................................................................................... 40
3.4 Outcome D: People have access to housing through an efficient and responsive housing
market ............................................................................................................................................... 41
3.4.1 Issues .................................................................................................................................... 41
3.4.2 Working Group Considerations............................................................................................ 42
3.4.3 Findings and Recommendations .......................................................................................... 43
3.5 Outcome E: Indigenous people have the same housing opportunities (in relation to
homelessness services, housing rental, housing purchase and access to housing) through an
efficient and responsive housing market.......................................................................................... 45
3.5.1 Issues .................................................................................................................................... 45
3.5.2 Working Group Considerations............................................................................................ 45
3.5.3 Findings and Recommendations .......................................................................................... 47
3.6 Outcome F: Indigenous people have improved housing amenity and reduced overcrowding,
particularly in remote areas and discrete communities ................................................................... 47
3.6.1 Issues .................................................................................................................................... 48
3.6.2 Working Group Considerations............................................................................................ 48
3.6.3 Findings and Recommendations .......................................................................................... 49
4. Performance Benchmarks, Outputs and Data Collection ................................................................. 50
4.1 Performance Benchmarks ........................................................................................................... 51
4.2 Outputs ....................................................................................................................................... 53
4.3 Data Collection Issues ................................................................................................................. 57
5. Attachments ...................................................................................................................................... 58
5.1 Attachment A: Working Group Response to CRC Recommendations ........................................ 58
5.2 Attachment B: Possible Performance Benchmarks .................................................................... 65
5.3 Attachment C: Equivalence Scales .............................................................................................. 67
6. Sources .............................................................................................................................................. 70
7. Glossary of Terms.............................................................................................................................. 71
3
1. Executive Summary
1.1 The Review of the National Affordable Housing Agreement
The National Affordable Housing Agreement (NAHA) was agreed by the Council of Australian
Governments (COAG) on 29 November 2008 and came into force on 1 January 2009. It replaced a
number of earlier arrangements in the housing area including the Commonwealth State Housing
Agreement and the Supported Accommodation Assistance Program.
The overarching objective of the NAHA is to ensure that all Australians have access to affordable,
safe and sustainable housing that contributes to social and economic participation. The NAHA is a
framework for improving outcomes for all Australians — for renters and home buyers, for those
receiving housing assistance and for those who are not, and for those who have access to housing
and those who are experiencing or at risk of homelessness.
The NAHA is supported by the National Affordable Housing Specific Purpose Payment. This is an
indexed on-going payment to the states and territories to be spent in the housing and homelessness
sector, amounting to $1.3 billion per annum in 2012-13. The NAHA is also supported by National
Partnership Agreements on Homelessness, Remote Indigenous Housing and the Nation Building and
Jobs Plan.
The review of the NAHA and the conceptual framework
In 2010, at the request of COAG, Heads of Treasuries undertook a review of National Agreements,
National Partnerships and Implementation Plans (the HoTs Review). In February 2011, COAG agreed
to establish a Steering Group, led by Senior Officials from First Ministers’ and Treasury agencies to:

take forward the key and related recommendations arising from the HoTs Review;

consider improvements to the governance and performance reporting framework; and

tackle deficiencies in the design of current agreements identified by the HoTs Review and
reports of the COAG Reform Council (CRC) to reinforce COAG’s commitment to performance and
public accountability.
Based on the HoTs Review, COAG agreed to a series of reviews of agreements to improve
performance information and public accountability. It was agreed that the NAHA would be reviewed
as part of this process, with a report by June 2012. A Working Group was established in August 2011
to conduct the review.
4
1.2 Findings and Recommendations
Analysis of Framework
1.2.1 Measurement of Performance Against Outcomes – Performance Indicators
While there are significant flaws in some indicators, the Working Group concluded that the overall
performance reporting framework is broadly functional, with most outcomes supported by
indicators that are conceptually valid.
Outcome A: People who are homeless or at risk of homelessness achieve sustainable housing and
social inclusion
Performance Indicator 3 (PI 3): proportion of Australians who are homeless; and
Performance Indicator 4 (PI 4): proportion of people experiencing repeat periods of homelessness.
In its assessment of the performance reporting framework for Outcome A, the CRC raised concerns
about:

the extent to which indicators are able to measure social inclusion and sustainable housing as
required in the outcome;

the reliability of the count of homeless people, including the frequency of data (as PI 3:
proportion of Australians who are homeless depends on the Census of Population and Housing
conducted every five years); and

the extent of coverage of the homeless population in measuring repeat homelessness for PI 4:
proportion of people experiencing repeat periods of homelessness currently measured only from
the Specialist Homelessness Services Collection (SHSC) (previously the Supported
Accommodation Assistance Program (SAAP) data collection), which covers a sub-population of
homeless people who seek assistance.
The Working Group did not support the development of additional indicators to measure whether
homeless people achieve social inclusion through employment, education or social participation. It
considered that more detailed measurement was not warranted in the NAHA, given its focus on
housing. It was considered that the scope of the outcome needed to be read in the light of this
focus, and broader issues will be addressed by addressing homelessness. The Working Group
considered therefore, that there would be value in reforming or reframing the outcome to remove
the reference to social inclusion.
The Working Group noted the difficulty of measuring sustainable housing outcomes for homeless
people and, in view of this, did not consider that the additional data development required to
support performance reporting against this aspect of the outcome was warranted in relation to
other priorities. It was noted that reporting on related outputs would provide supplementary
information on achievement of housing outcomes.
The Working Group noted that the review of the methodology for calculating homelessness using
Census data is expected to be completed in 2012 and the count of homelessness should be more
5
robust in the future. The Working Group also noted that the development of an inter-censal count
of homelessness would be of significant value and should be a priority.
The Working Group considered that existing reporting of repeat homelessness through the former
SAAP and the new SHSC is adequate.
Recommendations
That COAG agree to:

retain PI 3: proportion of Australians who are homeless;

retain PI 4: proportion of people experiencing repeat periods of homelessness;

note the potential of work on inter-censal counts of homelessness to improve the
reporting under the NAHA; and

note that it may be appropriate to reframe Outcome A to remove the reference to
social inclusion.
Outcome B: People are able to rent housing that meets their needs
Performance Indicator 1 (PI 1): proportion of low-income households in rental stress
Supplementary Measure: proportion of low-income households in social housing and in rental stress
The CRC has identified a number of issues within the specifications for the indicator and
recommended a number of revisions. The key issues for the indicator were:

refining the target group to include renters in both the private market and in social housing and
to exclude non-renter households;

the need for additional indicators to include those who can find affordable accommodation that
does not meet their needs, and those who cannot find any rental accommodation at all;

measuring non-financial aspects of need; and

the lack of distinction between rental stress resulting from accommodation needs and rental
stress arising from preferences.
The Working Group agreed to the CRC’s recommendation that this indicator should report on low
income renters only and supported amending the indicator description to ‘proportion of low income
renter households in rental stress’. The Working Group considered that a separate supplementary
measure proportion of low income households in social housing and in rental stress introduced by
the CRC was not a useful measure of NAHA performance, given the small number of social housing
households in rental stress and that the identification of a number of these households is likely to
reflect data or reporting issues. The Working Group agreed that reporting on this measure should
be discontinued.
6
The Working Group considered that low-income households should be defined as those in the
bottom 40 per cent of equivalised disposable household income. For the purpose of measuring
rental stress, the Working Group agreed this should be defined as those households spending more
than 30 per cent of their gross income in rent.
The Working Group considered that Outcome B: People can rent housing that meets their needs
could be appropriately measured by examining the financial aspects of need only, given the focus
of the NAHA on housing affordability and the complexity of measuring other aspects of need.
The Working Group considered that there was value in further conceptual work to be undertaken by
(or under the auspice of) the Select Council on Housing and Homelessness on a potential additional
indicator rental accommodation is affordable and available to low-income earners, because the
existing performance indicator does not provide information on the number of rental properties
available to low and moderate income households as some affordable accommodation may be
occupied by higher income households.
Recommendations
That COAG agree:

that PI 1: proportion of low income households in rental stress be renamed to refer to
low-income renter households in rental stress;

the reference in Outcome B to ‘housing meeting people’s needs’ be interpreted as
referring to affordability or financial need and assessed through PI 1;

the supplementary measure proportion of low-income rental households in social
housing and rental stress cease to be reported as a measure of NAHA outcomes; and

that the Select Council on Housing and Homelessness report back to COAG on a
potential indicator on rental accommodation that is affordable and available to low
income households in the first quarter of 2013.
Outcome C: People can purchase affordable housing
Performance Indicator 2 (PI 2): proportion of homes sold or built that are affordable by low and
moderate income households;
Performance Indicator 5 (PI 5): proportion of Australian households owning or purchasing a home;
and
Supplementary Measure: proportion of low income households in mortgage stress.
The CRC has expressed concern about the high level of sensitivity to interest rate changes of PI 2:
The proportion of homes sold or built that are affordable by low and moderate income households
and the consequent difficulty of attributing the outcome to the performance of governments. The
CRC also expressed concern in relation to PI 5: The proportion of Australian households owning or
purchasing a home, that it is not clear which direction of change in this indicator represents progress
towards Outcome C: People can purchase affordable housing as the indicator may change according
7
to factors that have little to do with affordability, such as demographic change and tenure
preferences.
The Working Group considered that PI 2 will provide a more robust measure of Outcome C if the
indicator is changed from the proportion of homes sold or built to the number of homes that are
affordable to low and moderate income households per 1,000 low and moderate income
households. The Working Group noted that the limitations of estimating annual income thresholds
from biennial Survey of Income and Housing data need to be taken into account in reporting on PI 2.
In the case of owner-builder households, there is little evidence to suggest that the indicator would
be improved significantly by accounting for these households. The Working Group considered that
low income households should be defined as those in the bottom 40 per cent of the income
distribution based on equivalised disposable household income and that gross household income
should be used as the appropriate measure for assessing home purchase affordability in the context
of PI 2.
The Working Group noted that PI 5: proportion of Australian households owning or purchasing a
home only measures whether households actually own or purchase housing, not whether this
housing is affordable to them. There is no clear link between the indicator (ownership) and the
outcome (current affordability). As a result, the Working Group did not support retention of this
indicator as a performance indicator, although it was agreed that it may provide useful contextual
information.
The CRC has been using mortgage stress as a supplementary indicator and while this is readily
understood by the public, there is evidence that only a relatively small number of low and moderate
income households are in mortgage stress—once high-wealth households and those ahead in their
payments or paying more than the minimum repayment are excluded from the indicator.
Accordingly, the Working Group did not support retention of this as a performance indicator.
Recommendations
That COAG agree that:

PI 2 be changed to: The number of homes sold or built per 1,000 low and
moderate income households that are affordable by low and moderate income
households;

PI 5: proportion of Australian households owning or purchasing a home be
removed as an indicator; and

the supplementary mortgage stress indicator not be included in the NAHA as a
performance indicator.
8
Outcome D: People have access to housing through an efficient and responsive housing market
Performance Indicator: nil
Interim Indicator: The estimated cumulative gap between underlying demand for housing and
housing supply, as a proportion of the increase in underlying demand.
When the NAHA was agreed, governments committed to developing indicators in relation to supply
meeting demand for housing and housing market efficiency to support Outcome D but this has not
occurred. The CRC proposed use of an interim indicator developed by the National Housing Supply
Council (NHSC): The estimated cumulative gap between underlying demand for housing and housing
supply, as a proportion of the increase in underlying demand, and reported using this indicator in its
2010 and 2011 NAHA reports.
The Working Group agreed that there are benefits to continued reporting against the interim
indicator as long as the limitations of this measure, in particular, the underlying assumptions and the
difference between effective and underlying demand, are clearly noted.
The Working Group also noted that States and Territories are already reporting against a set of
National Performance Measures in the annual National Report on Development Assessment
Performance (NRDAP).
While there are currently data limitations affecting these measures, these measures may in the
future provide useful information on this outcome in the NAHA. The Working Group agreed that,
given the current state of the data, the NRDAP measures were not suitable for inclusion as indicators
at this time, but that there was merit in the Standing Council on Transport and Infrastructure
continuing work to improve the data to support these indicators and advising the Select Council on
Housing and Homelessness on progress in early 2013.
Recommendations
That COAG agree that:

the National Housing Supply Council indicator: Estimated cumulative gap
between underlying demand for housing and housing supply, as a proportion of
the increase in underlying demand be adopted as a Performance Indicator, noting
ongoing data development being undertaken by the National Housing Supply
Council to improve the indicator;

the Select Council on Housing and Homelessness be requested to report on any
proposed improvements to the above indicator in the first quarter of 2013; and

the Standing Council on Transport and Infrastructure be requested to continue
work underway on development of the data supporting the indicators for the
National Report on Development Assessment Performance (NRDAP), and advise
the Select Council on Housing and Homelessness on progress in early 2013 to
inform consideration of indicators to be included in future NAHA performance
reports.
9
Outcome E: Indigenous people have the same housing opportunities (in relation to homelessness
services, housing rental, housing purchase and access to housing) through an efficient and
responsive housing market
Performance Indicator 6 (PI 6): proportion of Indigenous households owning or purchasing a home
The key issue identified by the CRC in relation to this outcome is whether this outcome should be
measured by disaggregation of relevant NAHA indicators for other outcomes or whether Indigenousspecific indicators should be developed for each relevant outcome. In addition, the CRC noted that
the most relevant data are only available every three years.
The NAHA currently only has one specific performance indicator for an aspect of this outcome - PI 6.
To measure the overall progress towards the outcome, the CRC has used indicators from other
outcomes and disaggregated them by the Indigenous status of people and households where
appropriate. The CRC has recommended that COAG endorse this approach.
PI 6 only measures one aspect of the outcome, the proportion of Indigenous households owning or
purchasing a home. Although the PI’s value is in assessing housing disadvantage, it has very limited
bearing on, for example, access to rental accommodation or housing market efficiency and
responsiveness.
The Working Group agreed to the disaggregation of relevant NAHA indicators as the preferred
approach to measuring this outcome, with retention of PI 6, even if the corresponding indicator
PI 5 is removed. However, the Working Group agreed that it was not appropriate to
disaggregate market and community level indicators such as those relating to housing supply.
The Working Group agreed that, while there are limitations in current data, development of
Indigenous specific indicators for each relevant outcome was not necessary. It has been identified
that developing Indigenous specific indicators would result in significant additional work and limited
additional benefit as in most cases the same data would be reported.
Recommendation
That COAG agree to:

retain PI 6: proportion of Indigenous households owning or purchasing a home; and

disaggregate data on relevant NAHA performance indicators.
10
Outcome F: Indigenous people have improved housing amenity and reduced overcrowding,
particularly in remote areas.
Performance Indicator 7 (PI 7): proportion of Indigenous households living in overcrowded conditions;
and
Performance Indicator 8 (PI 8): proportion of Indigenous households living in houses of an acceptable
standard.
The Working Group noted, in relation to reporting on Outcome F, that:

PI 7 and PI 8 do not reflect Outcome F’s focus on remote and discrete communities;

new data is only available every three years;

data sources cannot reliably disaggregate information on remote and discrete communities; and

the definition of ‘acceptable standard’ for PI 8 differs from what would be considered an
acceptable standard in the general community.
The Working Group found that the two existing performance indicators do not reflect the emphasis
of Outcome F on remote and discrete communities and recommends revising the existing indicators
to include a reference to these communities. The Working Group considered that data required
enhancement to improve reporting on progress towards outcomes in remote and discrete
communities.
Data for these performance indicators are sourced from the rolling three-yearly cycle of Australian
Bureau of Statistics (ABS) Indigenous surveys the National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander
Health Survey (NATSHS) and the National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Survey
(NATSISS). The Working Group:

noted that the financial and non-financial costs of increasing data collection in remote and very
remote areas could outweigh any benefits such as improved reliability of the data; and

agreed it would be appropriate for the Select Council on Housing and Homelessness to consider
alternative and/or new data sources to allow more reliable reporting on remote and discrete
communities, and to report back to COAG in the first quarter of 2013 on the costs and benefits
of improving data for reporting on this Outcome.
The Working Group agreed to adopt the ABS standard definition that dwellings are regarded as
being of an acceptable standard if they have four working facilities (for washing people, for washing
clothes/bedding, for storing/preparing food, and sewerage) and have no more than two major
structural problems (major cracks in walls or floors, major plumbing problems, and wood rot or
termite damage)1, as this was considered to be a robust measure.
The supplementary indicator: Proportion of Indigenous households living in social housing in
overcrowded conditions was considered useful and should be retained. Development of a
supplementary indicator relating to the proportion of Indigenous households living in social housing
1
Australian Bureau of Statistics.
11
of an acceptable condition was also supported noting that reporting will depend on data quality in
the 2012 National Social Housing Survey.
As the CRC has noted, adequate and safe housing for Indigenous people is an important factor
contributing to Closing the Gap in Indigenous Disadvantage, in particular, targets relating to closing
the gap in life expectancy within a generation, halving the gap in mortality rates for children under
five in a decade and halving the gap for Indigenous students in reading, writing and literacy within a
decade. The Working Group considers that PIs 7 and 8 should be important contributors to
reporting on governments’ achievements in Closing the Gap targets.
Recommendations
That COAG agree to:

revise PI 7: proportion of Indigenous households living in overcrowded conditions, to
add including in remote and discrete communities;

revise PI 8: proportion of Indigenous households living in houses of an acceptable
standard to add including in remote and discrete communities;

retain the supplementary indicator relating to overcrowding in social housing and
explore whether data from the 2012 National Social Housing Survey is of sufficient
quality to report a supplementary indicator on dwelling adequacy; and

request the Select Council on Housing and Homelessness to consider alternative data
and the development of additional data sources to allow reporting on remote and
discrete communities as required under the outcome and to report back to COAG in
the first quarter of 2013 on the costs and benefits of improving data and reporting.
1.2.2 Performance Benchmarks, Outputs and Data Collection
1.2.2.1 Benchmarks
When COAG considered the outcomes of the HoTs Review of National Agreements, National
Partnerships and Implementation Plans at its meeting of 11 February 2011, it agreed that the
underlying reform principles of the Intergovernmental Agreement on Federal Financial
Arrangements (IGA) continues to provide a strong foundation for progressing COAG’s agreed reform
agenda and achieving better policy and service delivery outcomes for all Australians. COAG agreed
to establish a working group to take forward the key recommendations arising from the HoTs
Review and to tackle deficiencies in the design of current agreements identified by the HoTs Review.
In relation to benchmarks for performance indicators, the HoTs Review stated that “benchmarks are
used to inform the general community about the effectiveness of government activities”2. The HoTs
2
Heads of Treasuries, Report of the Review of National Agreements, National Partnerships and
Implementation Plans under the Intergovernmental Agreement on Federal Financial Relations, December
2010, unpublished, p 137.
12
Review commented that, for National Agreements, performance benchmarks should be “few in
number, high-level and reflect the highest order, most challenging goals toward attainment of
outcomes”.
The CRC has previously considered the absence of performance benchmarks in its report on
performance under the NAHA in 2008–09. The NAHA is the only national agreement without
performance benchmarks and the CRC recommended consideration of the development of
performance benchmarks or targets for inclusion in the NAHA to allow better tracking of
governments’ progress towards the outcomes in the agreement.
The IGA stated that ‘National Agreements will specify performance indicators to enhance public
accountability. Performance indicators, in conjunction with clear roles and responsibilities, inform
the community about how each government is progressing towards achieving the mutually agreed
objectives, outcomes and outputs.’3 It goes on to say ‘National Agreements may also include a
limited number of outcomes focussed performance benchmarks, against some performance
indicators. Performance benchmarks can provide the community with an indication of the rate of
progress being made against agreed outcomes.’4 (Clause E14)
After consideration, the Working Group supported the inclusion of provisional performance
benchmarks with targets, as long as they took into account the funding available and were based on
indicators that are within the ability of jurisdictions to influence. These provisional benchmarks will
be developed by officials from all jurisdictions for consideration by COAG in October 2012 and
review following the Standing Council for Federal Financial Relations review of funding adequacy in
2013.
The current performance indicators in the NAHA do not fully comply with the HoTs conceptual
framework. The framework states that it is necessary to specify the direction of change that
represents progress towards an outcome for an indicator to be meaningful. It is noted that the
desired direction of change is fairly intuitive for all indicators except PI 5, which the Working Group
suggests be removed. For clarity, this report specifies agreed directions of change for all
recommended indicators.
Recommendation
That COAG agree:

3
4
that officials from all jurisdictions will develop provisional performance benchmarks with
quantifiable targets for the NAHA, reflecting current funding levels and what is in control
of jurisdictions to influence, for consideration by COAG in October 2012, to be reviewed
following the Standing Council on Federal Financial Relations’ review of funding
adequacy in 2013.
Intergovernmental Agreement on Federal Financial Relations, Clause E13
Ibid Clause E14
13
1.2.2.2 Outputs
The CRC made a number of recommendations about improving reporting on outputs. The NAHA
contains seven outputs and requires that the CRC report annually on these. The Working Group
considered that outputs provide important public performance information and supported the
continued provision of performance information on outputs by the CRC where appropriate data are
available.
Recommendation
That
COAG note:
4.2
Outputs

that the Working Group supported the continued provision of performance
information on outputs by the CRC where appropriate data are available.
1.2.2.3 Data Collection Issues
The Working Group recommended that NAHA data be disaggregated to identify outcomes for young
people and those with disability where possible. The Working Group noted that ABS Survey of
Income and Housing (SIH) data can be disaggregated to identify households with young people and
in 2009–10 for households with a person with disability. Similarly, any indicator using SHSC data can
be disaggregated by youth. While some data on disability is available for the SHSC, better
information will be available from 1 July 2013 when a more complete disability indicator is added to
the collection.
In relation to CRC recommendations about the timeliness of data provision and the frequency of
reporting, the Working Group considers that administrative data provided for each report should
relate to the relevant reporting year (this currently affects homelessness data and Indigenous
community housing data—both of which have an 18 month reporting lag). The need for more
frequent data was identified in relation to reporting on homelessness, (currently only available from
the 5-yearly Census) discussed in detail under Outcome A. Improved data for Indigenous housing
need was also identified under Outcome F.
1.3 Conclusion
The Terms of Reference for the Working Group provided that the review should focus on:
 the adequacy of performance indicators and output measures and their link to outcomes;
 data collection issues such as frequency, adequacy and ability to disaggregate by particular
cohorts such as young people, people with disability and Indigenous Australians; and
14
 performance reporting issues associated with the NAHA to enhance performance and public
accountability.
On balance, the Working Group concluded that the performance framework provided a reasonable
starting point for measuring achievement of outcomes, but should be improved by refining
indicators and developing data. The Working Group agreed that, consistent with the HoTs
conceptual framework, the preferred direction of change be specified for all performance indicators.
The Working Group considered all performance indicators should be retained with the exception of
PI 5: proportion of Australian households owning or purchasing a home, which may provide useful
contextual information, but is not a good measure of jurisdictional performance.
The Working Group recommended that the following indicators be retained unchanged:
 PI 3: proportion of Australians who are homeless;
 PI 4: proportion of Australians experiencing repeat periods of homelessness; and
 PI 6: proportion of Indigenous households owning or purchasing a home.
The Working Group considered that:
 PI 1: proportion of low income households in rental stress should be reframed as: Proportion of
low income renter households in rental stress,
 PI 2: proportion of homes sold or built that are affordable to low income households, should refer
to the number of homes sold or built per 1,000 low and moderate income households that are
affordable to low and moderate income households,
 PIs 7 and 8, referring to the proportion of Indigenous households living in overcrowded conditions
(PI 7) and in dwellings of an acceptable standard (PI 8) should be revised to add including in
remote and discrete communities.
The Working Group recommended the adoption of the National Housing Supply Council indicator
Estimated cumulative gap between underlying demand for housing and housing supply, as a
proportion of the increase in underlying demand as a performance indicator for Outcome D.
The Working Group recommended that COAG request that the Select Council on Housing and
Homelessness undertake additional work on:
 a potential indicator on rental accommodation that is affordable and available to low income
households and report back to COAG in the first quarter of 2013;
 proposed improvements to the interim NHSC indicator the estimated cumulative gap between
underlying demand for housing and housing supply, as a proportion of the increase in underlying
demand and report back to COAG in the first quarter of 2013;
 data to allow reporting on remote and discrete communities as required under Outcomes E and F
and to report back to COAG in the first quarter of 2013; and
 improved data on community housing, including Indigenous housing and report back to COAG in
the first quarter of 2013.
15
The Working Group also recommended the Standing Council on Transport and Infrastructure be
requested to continue work already underway on development of the data supporting the indicators
for the NRDAP and advise the Select Council on Housing and Homelessness in the first quarter of
2013 of its progress to enable consideration of indicators to be potentially included in the NAHA.
Data issues remain but the Working Group considered developments in data sources underway
should improve overall data collection, frequency and adequacy over future reporting cycles. Work
under way by ABS on the methodology to count the homeless using census data will improve data
integrity and for comparison over time. Current work on inter-censal data will also support
improvements in frequency. With regard to performance benchmarks, the Working Group
considered that performance benchmarks should be included in the NAHA as long as they took into
account the funding available and were based on indicators that are within the ability of jurisdictions
to influence. The Working Group also agreed that it was important to indicate the desired direction
for performance indicators and this has been included in this report.
16
Recommendations
Outcome A: People who are homeless or at risk of homelessness achieve sustainable housing and
social inclusion
Performance Indicator 3 (PI 3): proportion of Australians who are homeless
Performance Indicator 4 (PI 4): proportion of people experiencing repeat periods of homelessness
Recommendation 1
That COAG agree to:

retain PI 3: proportion of Australians who are homeless;

retain PI 4: proportion of people experiencing repeat periods of homelessness;

note the potential of work on inter-censal counts of homelessness, to improve the
reporting under the NAHA; and

note it may be appropriate to reframe Outcome A to remove the reference to social
inclusion.
Outcome B: People are able to rent housing that meets their needs
Performance Indicator 1: proportion of low-income households in rental stress
Supplementary Measure: proportion of low-income households in social housing and in rental stress
Recommendation 2
That COAG agree:
 that PI 1: proportion of low income households in rental stress be renamed to refer to lowincome renter households in rental stress;
 the reference in Outcome B to ‘housing meeting people’s needs’ be interpreted as referring
to affordability or financial need and assessed through PI 1;
 the supplementary measure proportion of low-income rental households in social housing
and rental stress cease to be reported as a measure of NAHA outcomes; and
 to ask that the Select Council on Housing and Homelessness to report back to COAG on a
potential indicator on rental accommodation that is affordable and available to low income
households in the first quarter of 2013.
17
Outcome C: People can purchase affordable housing
Performance Indicator 2 (PI 2): proportion of homes sold or built that are affordable by low and
moderate income households
Performance Indicator 5 (PI 5): proportion of Australian households owning or purchasing a home
Supplementary Measure: Proportion of low income households in mortgage stress
Recommendation 3
That COAG agree that:
 PI 2 be changed to The number of homes sold or built per 1,000 low and moderate income
households that are affordable by low and moderate income households;
 PI 5: Proportion of Australian households owning or purchasing a home be removed as an
indicator; and
 the supplementary mortgage stress indicator not be included in the NAHA as a performance
indicator.
Outcome D: People have access to housing through an efficient and responsive housing market
Performance Indicator: nil
Interim Indicator: Estimated cumulative gap between underlying demand for housing and housing
supply, as a proportion of the increase in underlying demand
Recommendation 4
That COAG agree that:
 the National Housing Supply Council indicator Estimated cumulative gap between underlying
demand for housing and housing supply, as a proportion of the increase in underlying
demand be adopted as a performance indicator, noting ongoing data development being
undertaken by the National Housing Supply Council to improve the indicator;
 the Select Council on Housing and Homelessness be requested to report on any proposed
improvements to the above indicator in the first quarter of 2013; and
 the Standing Council on Transport and Infrastructure be requested to continue work
underway on development of the data supporting the indicators for the National Report on
Development Assessment Performance (NRDAP), and advise the Select Council on Housing
and Homelessness on progress in early 2013 to inform consideration of indicators to be
included in future NAHA performance reports.
18
Outcome E: Indigenous people have the same housing opportunities (in relation to homelessness
services, housing rental, housing purchase and access to housing) through an efficient and
responsive housing market
Performance Indicator 6 (PI 6): proportion of Indigenous households owning or purchasing a home
Recommendation 5
That COAG agree to:
 retain PI 6: proportion of Indigenous households owning or purchasing a home; and
 disaggregate data on relevant NAHA performance indicators.
Outcome F: Indigenous people have improved housing amenity and reduced overcrowding,
particularly in remote areas and discrete communities
Performance Indicator 7 (PI 7): proportion of Indigenous households living in overcrowded conditions
Performance Indicator 8 (PI 8): proportion of Indigenous households living in houses of an acceptable
standard
Recommendation 6
That COAG agree to:
 revise PI 7: proportion of Indigenous households living in overcrowded conditions, to add
including in remote and discrete communities;
 revise PI 8: proportion of Indigenous households living in houses of an acceptable standard to
add including in remote and discrete communities;
 retain the supplementary indicator relating to overcrowding in social housing and explore
whether data from the 2012 National Social Housing Survey is of sufficient quality to report a
supplementary indicator on dwelling adequacy; and

request the Select Council on Housing and Homelessness to consider alternative data and
the development of additional data sources to allow reporting on remote and discrete
communities as required under the outcome and to report back to COAG in the first quarter
of 2013 on the costs and benefits of improving data and reporting.
19
Performance Benchmarks
Recommendation 7
That COAG agree:

that officials from all jurisdictions will develop provisional performance benchmarks with
quantifiable targets for the NAHA, reflecting current funding levels and what is in control of
jurisdictions to influence, for consideration by COAG in October 2012, to be reviewed
following the Standing Council on Federal Financial Relations’ review of funding adequacy in
2013.
Outputs
Recommendation 8
That COAG note:

that the Working Group supported the continued provision of performance information on
outputs by the CRC where appropriate data are available.
20
All Australians have access to affordable, safe and sustainable housing that contributes to social and economic participation
Objective
Outcomes
Performance
Indicators
A) People who are
homeless or at risk
of homelessness
achieve
sustainable
housing and social
inclusion
Proportion of
Australians who are
homeless
B) People are
able to rent
housing that
meets their
needs
C) People
can purchase
affordable
housing
D) People have
access to housing
through an
efficient and
responsive
housing market
Proportion of low
income renter
households in
rental stress
Number of
houses sold or
built per 1,000
low and
moderate
income
households that
are affordable
by low and
moderate
income
households
Estimated
cumulative gap
between underlying
demand for housing
and housing supply,
as a proportion of
the increase in
underlying demand
Proportion of people
experiencing repeat
periods of
homelessness
Output
Measures
Number of people
who are homeless or
at risk of
homelessness who are
assisted to secure and
sustain their tenancies
Number of people
who are assisted to
move from crisis
accommodation or
primary homelessness
to sustainable
accommodation
Number of
households
assisted in social
housing
Number of
households in
private rental
receiving subsidies
E) Indigenous people have the same
housing opportunities (in relation to
homelessness services, housing rental,
housing purchase and access to
housing through an efficient and
responsive housing market) as other
Australians
F) Indigenous people have
improved housing amenity and
reduced overcrowding,
particularly in remote areas
and discrete communities
Proportion of Indigenous
households owning or purchasing a
home
Proportion of Indigenous
households living in overcrowded
conditions including in remote
and discrete communities
Proportion of Indigenous
households living in houses of
an acceptable standard
including in remote and
discrete communities
Number of Indigenous
households provided with safe
and appropriate housing
Number of
people
receiving
home
purchase
assistance
Diagram of the Recommended Performance Reporting Framework
21
2. Introduction
2.1 The National Affordable Housing Agreement
In November 2008, COAG committed to the National Affordable Housing Agreement (NAHA), with
the objective of ensuring all ‘Australians have access to affordable, safe and sustainable housing that
contributes to social and economic participation’.
Governments formalised this commitment in the NAHA which commenced on 1 January 2009. To
coordinate and drive their work toward this objective, governments committed to achieving six
outcomes:
a. people who are homeless or at risk of homelessness achieve sustainable housing
and social inclusion
b. people are able to rent housing that meets their needs
c. people can purchase affordable housing
d. people have access to housing through an efficient and responsive housing market
e. Indigenous people have the same housing opportunities (in relation to
homelessness services, housing rental, housing purchase and access to an efficient
and responsive housing market) as other Australians
f. Indigenous people have improved housing amenity and reduced overcrowding,
particularly in remote areas.
As a national agreement, the NAHA is subject to the provisions of the Intergovernmental Agreement
on Federal Financial Relations (IGA). The IGA commenced on 1 January 2009. The IGA establishes a
framework for the Commonwealth's financial relations with the States and Territories. The
overarching objective of the federal financial relations framework is to improve the quality and
effectiveness of government services. The framework seeks to do this by providing:
 clarity about who is responsible for the achievement of outcomes and outputs;
 flexibility in the delivery of services by the States and Territories;
 accountability to the public for the delivery of services - the increased flexibility of the framework
is balanced with increased accountability and transparency through enhanced performance
reporting; and
 incentives for implementing reforms and the achievement of outcomes.
The NAHA is supported by the National Affordable Housing Specific Purpose Payment, which is an
indexed on-going payment to the states and territories to be spent in the housing sector, amounting
to $1.3 billion per annum in 2012-13. The NAHA is also supported by National Partnership
Agreements on Homelessness, Remote Indigenous Housing, the Nation Building and Jobs Plan and
the National Partnership Agreement on Social Housing (illustrated below).
22
NAHA
National Partnership on
the Nation Building and
Jobs Plan
National Partnership
Agreement on
Homelessness (NPAH)
National Partnership
on Remote Indigenous
Housing (NPARIH)
National Partnership
Agreement on Social
Housing (NPASH)
Social Housing
Initiative (SHI)
The NAHA provides that objectives and outcomes will be achieved through a range of outputs,
including the:
a.
number of people who are homeless or at risk of homelessness who are assisted to
secure and sustain their tenancies;
b. number of people who are assisted to move from crisis accommodation or primary
homelessness to sustainable accommodation;
c.number of households assisted in social housing;
d. number of households in private rental receiving subsidies;
e. number of people receiving home purchase assistance;
f. number of zoned lots available for residential construction; and
g. number of Indigenous households provided with safe and appropriate housing.
2.2 The NAHA Performance Reporting Framework
To measure progress against these outcomes, the NAHA includes a performance reporting
framework consisting of eight performance indicators assessing achievement of outcomes:
a.
b.
proportion of low income households in rental stress;
proportion of homes sold or built that are affordable by low and moderate income
households;
c.proportion of Australians who are homeless;
d. proportion of people experiencing repeat periods of homelessness;
e. proportion of Australian households owning or purchasing a home;
f. proportion of Indigenous households owning or purchasing a home;
g. proportion of Indigenous households living in overcrowded conditions; and
h. proportion of Indigenous households living in houses of an acceptable standard.
23
The NAHA also provides for further indicators to be developed in relation to:
a.
b.
supply meeting underlying demand for housing; and
housing market efficiency.
Under the IGA, in addition to their role in providing further information about the courses of action
jurisdictions are taking to achieve the outcomes, outputs may be measured as a proxy for outcomes
where the relevant outcome cannot readily be measured. The NAHA provides that outputs are to be
reported against the baseline output in 2008-09 (see Clause 9 of the agreement).
In addition to performance indicators, the performance reporting framework under the IGA also
includes performance benchmarks. Performance benchmarks set out a commitment to a particular
level of performance against an outcome. The IGA suggests it is most important to include
performance benchmarks for high level indicators relating to the most challenging outcomes where
they will provide the most useful information to the community and most effectively drive
performance. Presently, there are no performance benchmarks under the NAHA.
The relationship between the NAHA outcomes, performance indicators and outputs is illustrated
below.
24
Current Framework
25
2.3 The COAG Reform Council’s Reports on the NAHA
The CRC assesses and publicly reports on the performance of governments against the objectives,
outcomes and indicators of National Agreements.
The first CRC report on the NAHA5 (National Affordable Housing Agreement: Baseline performance
report for 2008–09) made six recommendations on ways to improve the performance reporting
framework. The first five recommendations related to changes that could be made relatively quickly
to improve the reporting framework: the use of up-to-date administrative data; improving the count
of homeless people in Australia; improving the measure of low-income households; and utilising
some existing performance indicators for Indigenous Outcome E: Indigenous people have the same
housing opportunities as other Australians.
The CRC referred the remaining recommendation to COAG for possible consideration by the Heads
of Treasuries Committee on Federal Financial Relations (HoTs). They related to consideration of
more frequent data collections, the use of benchmarks to track progress, performance indicators to
support Outcome B, relating to people renting housing that meets their needs, Outcome D on an
efficient and responsive housing market, and Outcome F, relating to Indigenous people in remote
and discrete communities and improved reporting of outputs.
Additional recommendations were made in the CRC’s 2011 report on the NAHA6, with the CRC
identifying the following priorities:
 development of a performance indicator for the outcome people have access to housing through
an efficient and responsive housing market;
 development of robust and comparable data on mainstream and Indigenous community housing;
and
 consideration of whether and how output measures could be further developed to assist with
reporting on the outcomes in the agreement.
2.4 The Heads of Treasuries Review
In December 2009, COAG requested the Heads of Treasuries (HoTs) to undertake a review of
agreements under the IGA – National Agreements, National Partnerships and Implementation Plans.
In considering the effectiveness of the performance frameworks of the existing agreements, the
HoTs Review7 identified there were widespread issues, which largely fell into two broad categories –
data limitations and conceptual inadequacy.
The review noted that the data limitations identified included data being of poor quality, unreliable
or infrequent, not comparable over time or between jurisdictions or unable to be sufficiently
disaggregated by Indigenous or socio-economic status. It recommended that action be taken to
5
National Affordable Housing Agreement: Baseline performance report for 2008–09
National Affordable Housing Agreement: Performance Report for 2009–10
7
Op cit
6
26
address indicators with data limitations where the limitations means that it is not possible to reliably
use the indicator to assess progress against the outcomes of the agreement.
In relation to conceptual adequacy, the HoTs Review concluded that to be useful measures of the
outcomes of the agreement, performance indicators require clear and logical links to the outcomes,
which should be evident to the general public. In addition, a performance indicator must be able to
identify whether real changes in the related outcome over time have occurred. It should also be
clear which direction of change in an indicator indicates progress.
The HoTs Review found that the NAHA aligned with the principles of the IGA, in that it is high-level,
focuses on achieving outcomes, avoids financial controls and its objective is clear. The HoTs Review,
however, noted that it was difficult to assess governments’ progress in implementing the NAHA, due
to issues in the conceptual adequacy, timeliness, reliability and comparability of performance
indicators. The HoTs Review added that data deficiencies preclude reporting on the efficient
operation of the housing market and the production of lots available for residential construction,
which are areas that were not specifically addressed in predecessor agreements.
2.5 Review of the NAHA
At its meeting on 13 February 2011, COAG agreed that the underlying reform principles of the IGA
continue to provide a strong foundation for progressing COAG’s agreed reform agenda and achieving
better policy and service delivery outcomes for all Australians. COAG agreed to establish a working
group, led by Senior Officials from First Ministers’ and Treasury agencies, to take forward the key
and related recommendations arising from the HoTs Review, consider improvements to the
governance and performance reporting framework and to tackle deficiencies in the design of current
agreements identified by the HoTs Review and reports of the CRC to reinforce COAG’s commitment
to performance and public accountability.
COAG agreed that the working group commence a series of reviews of agreements, consistent with
CRC and HoTs Review recommendations and utilising the conceptual framework developed by the
HoTs Review to improve performance information and public accountability. It was agreed that the
NAHA would be reviewed as part of this process, with a report by June 2012.
A Working Group was established in August 2011 to conduct the review. The Working Group drew
on advice from data and program experts from Commonwealth, State and Territory central and line
agencies and data agencies in developing its findings and recommendations.
The tasks for the Working Group were to:
 review the performance framework in the NAHA using the conceptual framework developed by
the HoTs Review as per the process outlined below, which will include consideration of:
a. the number and appropriateness of performance indicators (indicators should
be limited to those necessary to measure performance and inform the public
27
b.
c.
d.
e.
about progress) noting the importance of data collection in relation to young
people and people with a disability,
the links between performance indicators and outcomes,
the role of the NAHA performance framework in supporting the achievement of
the COAG closing the gap targets, including measuring the achievement of
Indigenous outputs and outcomes,
what is the minimum data and frequency of collection required to demonstrate
performance (including, where relevant, the ability to identify Indigenous
Australians within data collections and to further disaggregate data by geolocation) in consultation with relevant data agencies,
the cost of developing data to support the indicators against the benefit to
public accountability arising from better data;
 have regard to any recommendations arising from the review of the performance framework of
the National Partnership Agreement on Homelessness which draws indicators from the NAHA;
 respond to the relevant CRC recommendations (see Attachment A);
 seek advice as required from ministerial council data groups, data agencies, the Secretariat to the
Steering Committee for the Review of Government Service Provision and the CRC; and
 provide a final report to the HoTs Review and CRC Implementation Steering Group on the review
including recommendations for action.
2.6 Review Method
In accordance with its terms of reference, the Working Group reviewed the NAHA performance
framework against the HoTs conceptual framework, taking into consideration any relevant
recommendations from the CRC, the HoTs review and the Steering Committee for the Review of
Government Service Provision, and considered the rationale for change. The Working Group
considered additional and alternative performance indicators and performance benchmarks against
a framework for prioritisation, including consideration of the costs and benefits of new or expanded
data collections and the overall appropriateness and proportionality of any revised performance
framework.
In assessing improvements in the performance framework of the NAHA, the Working Group drew
upon expert advice and available data from Commonwealth and State and Territory agencies, as well
as expertise from the ABS, the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (AIHW), the CRC and the
Productivity Commission (the latter in its role as secretariat for the Steering Committee for the
Review of Government Service Provision).
2.7 Structure of the Review Report
This report comprises four sections. Following the Executive Summary and Introduction sections,
Chapter 3 provides an analysis of the reporting against each outcome, including the adequacy of
28
performance indicators and data issues. Chapter 4 considers other issues raised by the CRC and
terms of reference, including the use of benchmarks and reporting on outputs.
29
3. Measurement of Performance Against Outcomes –
Performance Indicators
The Working Group undertook the following analysis of Outcomes A to F within the performance
framework. The framework was found to be broadly functional, with most outcomes supported by
indicators that are conceptually valid.
3.1 Outcome A: People who are homeless or at risk of homelessness
achieve sustainable housing and social inclusion
Performance Indicator (PI 3): proportion of Australians who are homeless; and
Performance Indicator (PI 4): proportion of people experiencing repeat periods of homelessness
Output: Number of people who are homeless or at risk of homelessness who are assisted to secure
and sustain their tenancies
Output: Number of people who are assisted to move from crisis accommodation or primary
homelessness to sustainable accommodation
The CRC made the following recommendations in its 2008-09 baseline NAHA performance report:
 Noting the review by the ABS of the Counting the Homeless methodology, ask the Housing
Ministers Conference to report on options for improving the count of homeless people in
Australia;
 Investigate the development of additional performance indicators that measure whether
people who are homeless or at risk of homelessness are achieving sustainable hou sing and
social inclusion;
 Investigate the development of inter-censal proxy measures, based on new or existing
administrative data collections, that could be used to indicate changes in the homeless
population on a yearly basis; and
 Expedite the development of a measure of repeat homelessness.
3.1.1 Issues
A number of significant data issues has been identified by the CRC and others. The key issues about
the effectiveness of the current indicators include the reliability and frequency of the count of
homeless people, including the frequency of data (PI 3: proportion of Australians who are homeless),
the extent to which indicators are able to measure social inclusion and sustainable housing, and
population coverage (PI 4: proportion of people experiencing repeat periods of homelessness).
The estimates of the proportion of Australians who are homeless are available once every five years
based on the Census of Population and Housing and that methodology has been subject to review.
The Census is not able to identify with certainty all people who are homeless, in particular, those
without a fixed address, Indigenous young people and people ‘couch surfing’ with family and friends.
30
The CRC noted that measuring repeat periods of homelessness for the whole homeless population is
not possible with existing data collections and that the indicator is reported using an interim proxy
measure based on Specialist Homelessness Services (SHS) clients who access SHS more than once a
year.
The CRC identified that the proxy measure for repeat homelessness has several limitations including:
 it only covers those people who accessed homelessness services and may not be representative
of repeat homelessness in the broader homeless population;
 it does not capture those homeless people who accessed homelessness services initially, but did
not return when experiencing further periods of homelessness;
 it may be less useful in remote and very remote areas, where services are more limited;
 identifying clients with repeat need relies on correct linkage of data and services identifying a
repeat need during the financial year; and
 the number of repeat clients identified is likely to be influenced by the availability and nature of
services provided within a jurisdiction.
The CRC also notes that the direction of the indicator is ambiguous – while a decrease would
generally be considered to be desirable, it is also possible that an increase could be interpreted as an
improvement if it means that services are reaching more clients who need them, through greater
resourcing or targeting, or that more clients are returning for assistance when they need it.
The Working Group also notes that the performance indicators reflect a narrow interpretation of
Outcome A because they focus on solely on the prevalence of homelessness and beyond this do not
examine issues of social inclusion or consider if housing, when obtained, is sustainable. As discussed
below, the Working Group considered that this focus on homelessness itself was appropriate.
3.1.2 Working Group Considerations
Whether people who are homeless or at risk of homelessness are achieving sustainable housing and
social inclusion
The Working Group noted that the current indicators focus on homelessness but not other aspects
of social inclusion such as participation in the wider community through employment, education or
other means. It is considered that those who are homeless are among the most excluded and that
the achievement of sustainable housing is strongly linked to a reduction of social exclusion. The
proportion of people experiencing repeat homelessness is therefore a suitable indicator for both the
social inclusion and sustainable housing aspects of this outcome.
The Working Group found that it was not possible to measure the extent to which homeless people
achieve social inclusion in relation to employment, education and community participation
outcomes through a single robust indicator. Longitudinal data are not currently available on a
regular basis to demonstrate outcomes for the range of social inclusion priorities. Reporting on
particular elements (such as achievement of employment outcomes) could be feasible but would
considerably expand the focus of measurement beyond the core housing focus of the NAHA.
31
The Working Group concluded that it was not practical or desirable, given the scope of the NAHA, to
report on social inclusion except in relation to achieving housing and noted that there may be value
in reconsidering the scope of this outcome to reflect this.
The CRC noted that the current indicators do not allow it to fully determine whether people facing
homelessness have achieved sustainable housing, as they demonstrate a lack of sustainable housing
rather than achievement of sustainable housing, although it was noted that reporting on related
outputs would provide supplementary information on achievement of housing outcomes. Data from
the SHSC provided information on the housing outcomes of persons using SHS and these are
currently reported for particular clients groups (such as those experiencing domestic violence) for
the NPAH. The data that may be derived from the General Social Survey (GSS) will also provide
information on housing outcomes of individuals who have had previous experiences of
homelessness. The potential for these data to be used in NAHA reporting merits further
exploration.
Improving the count of homeless people through the development of inter-censal proxy measures
The ABS is reviewing the methodology for estimating the number of homeless people at the time of
the Census, so Census estimates should be more accurate in the future.
The issue of data frequency for counts of homelessness was also considered as part of the review of
the NPAH, which noted the five yearly gap between Censuses where data were not currently
available. The review of the NPAH also noted that gathering information on the proportion of the
population who are homeless is costly, complex and labour-intensive. The Working Group considers
that trying to collect this information through more frequent Census collections is not practical.
However, more regular measures of progress based on inter-censal estimates may be possible in
future. The ABS is exploring whether Department of Human Services (DHS) data can be used to
provide an indication of changes in the homeless population between Censuses.
The ABS is also considering incorporating the homelessness module used in the GSS in other relevant
national population surveys, including for people with disabilities and Indigenous people. The GSS
does not give an absolute measure of homelessness because it is a survey of people in private
dwellings, thus missing out on people who are homeless at the time of the survey, especially those
rough sleeping and in improvised dwellings.
However, the GSS does provide information on the number of people who have been homeless in
the previous twelve months, the period of homelessness, and information on length of time in
current dwelling. For example, in 2010 the GSS reported that 251,000 people aged 18 years or over
were estimated to have experienced homelessness in the previous 12 months and for the most
recent period of homelessness, 22 per cent had spent 6 months or more without a permanent place
to live8.
8
ABS, 4159.0 - General Social Survey: Summary Results, Australia, 2010
32
Population coverage for repeat homelessness
The quality and constraints on data available to measure repeat homelessness were considered in
detail by the review of the NPAH, which concluded that there was no better data source available.
Improvements to homelessness data undertaken by the AIHW through its SHSC, which commenced
on 1 July 2011, will result in some enhanced data on repeat homelessness, as the collection will be
client-based rather than support period-based and will include an additional data item on previous
homelessness.
The AIHW, in consultation with States and Territories and the Department of Families, Housing,
Community Services and Indigenous Affairs (FaHCSIA), is considering further data development for
the SHSC now that it is operational. This may include improvements to data on repeat
homelessness.
3.1.3 Findings and Recommendations
The Working Group did not support the development of additional indicators to measure whether
homeless people achieve social inclusion through employment, education or social participation and
considered that more detailed measurement was not warranted in the NAHA, given its focus on
housing. It was considered that the scope of the outcome needed to be read in light of this housing
focus and that the intention of the NAHA is that these broader issues will be addressed through
addressing homelessness. The Working Group identified, however, that there could be value in
reforming or reframing the outcome to remove the reference to social inclusion.
The Working Group noted the difficulty of measuring sustainable housing outcomes for homeless
people and, in view of this, did not consider that the additional data development required to
support performance reporting against this aspect of the outcome was warranted in relation to
other priorities. It was noted that reporting on related outputs would provide supplementary
information on achievement of housing outcomes.
The Working Group noted that the review of the methodology for calculating homelessness using
Census data is expected to be completed in 2012 and the count of homelessness should be more
robust in the future. The Working Group also noted that the development of an inter-censal count
of homelessness would be of significant value and should be a priority.
The Working Group considered that existing reporting of repeat homelessness through the former
SAAP and the new SHS data collection is adequate.
33
Recommendations
That COAG agree to:

retain PI 3: proportion of Australians who are homeless;

retain PI 4: proportion of people experiencing repeat periods of homelessness;

note the potential of work on inter-censal counts of homelessness to improve the
reporting under the NAHA; and

note that it may be appropriate to reframe Outcome A to remove the reference to
social inclusion.
3.2 Outcome B: People are able to rent housing that meets their needs
Performance Indicator (PI 1): proportion of low-income households in rental stress
Supplementary Measure: proportion of low-income households in social housing and in rental stress
Output 3: Number of households assisted in social housing
Output 4: Number of households in private rental receiving subsidies
The CRC made the following recommendations in its 2008-09 baseline NAHA performance report:
 that COAG agree that the measure for the performance indicator ‘proportion of low-income
households in rental stress’ be refined to exclude non-renter households in order to better
measure performance against the outcome that ‘people are able to rent housing that meets their
needs;
 that low-income households be defined as those in the bottom 40 per cent of equivalised
disposable household income; and
 the development of additional performance indicators for this outcome should be investigated,
focusing specifically on the extent to which rental accommodation meets tenants’ needs.
3.2.1 Issues
The key issues considered by the Working Group on the effectiveness of the current indicators to
measure this outcome were:
 refining the target group to exclude non-renter households in order to better measure
performance against the outcome;
 a need for additional indicators to include those who can find affordable accommodation that
does not meet their needs, and those who cannot find any rental accommodation at all;
 inclusion of measures of non-financial aspects of need; and
34
 that the indicator does not distinguish between rental stress resulting from accommodation
needs and rental stress arising from preferences. For example, a low-income family that must
spend 40 per cent of their income to obtain basic accommodation within travelling distance of
employment is in a different situation to an individual who chooses to spend 40 per cent of their
income in order to live in a preferred location.
The CRC has over time requested the specifications for the indicator be revised, and it is currently
reported as the proportion of low-income renter households in rental stress.
3.2.2 Working Group Considerations
The Working Group supported the CRC’s recommendation that this indicator should report on low
income renters only and supported amending the indicator description to proportion of low income
renter households in rental stress.
The Working Group discussed the thresholds for this indicator (the first based on the distribution of
equivalised disposable household income and the second based on spending more than 30 per cent
of gross income on rent). The Working Group supports the definition of low income households as
those in the bottom 40 per cent of equivalised disposable household income. For the purpose of
measuring rental stress, the Working Group agreed that this should be defined as those households
spending more than 30 per cent of their gross income in rent. Details on equivalence scales are in
Attachment C.
The Working Group considered the development of additional performance indicators for this
outcome around the extent to which rental accommodation meets tenants’ needs beyond financial
dimensions of need. There were significant issues identified. Data on overcrowding and acceptable
standards discussed in relation to Outcome F (below) is most relevant for Indigenous households
and remote areas (with much greater deficits). While data on the numbers of the non-Indigenous
population living in overcrowded conditions could be reported every two years from the ABS SIH,
the assessment did not support such reporting due to the very low numbers (2.6 per cent at the
Australia level). Data and measures for acceptable dwelling standards for the non-Indigenous
population are not currently available, with only partial data available every six years in the ABS SIH.
The Working Group did not see sufficient benefit to justify the cost of the data development work
that would be required to report on acceptable dwelling standards in the non-Indigenous
population. The development of more complex measures would involve a number of difficult policy
judgments about tenants’ needs that did not necessarily allow a straightforward resolution.
The Working Group also noted that the current indicator only captures those who are in rental
accommodation, not those who are unable to rent accommodation. There was discussion of the
potential to develop an indicator to capture housing that is both affordable and available to low
income renter households. A possible indicator is ‘rental accommodation is affordable and available
to low-income earners’ which was used by the NHSC in their 2010 report.
The Working Group considered that while the data for the ‘availability’ aspect of the indicator had
some flaws and required further conceptual work, there might be value in including an indicator of
35
the number of rental properties affordable to low income households. This indicator would address
a gap in the existing indicator of rental stress by addressing the area it does not measure – the stock
of accommodation on the market that was affordable by low income households. However, further
data development work might be needed.
PI 1 covers all renters. In the CRC 2009-10 report a new supplementary measure was introduced:
proportion of low-income households in social housing and in rental stress. The Working Group
noted that the supplementary measure was not a useful measure of NAHA performance and the
identification of a number of these households is likely to reflect data or reporting issues. Only a
small number of social housing households are likely to be in rental stress as jurisdictions’ rent
policies set rents as a relatively low proportion of income. The Working Group agreed that reporting
on this measure should be discontinued.
3.2.3 Findings and Recommendations
The Working Group agreed to the CRC’s recommendation that this indicator should report on low
income renters only and supported amending the indicator description to ‘proportion of low income
renter households in rental stress’.
The supplementary measure proportion of low income households in social housing and in rental
stress, introduced by the CRC, was not seen to be a useful measure of NAHA performance and
reporting on this should be discontinued.
The Working Group considered that Outcome B: People can rent housing that meets their needs
should be captured by financial aspects only, given the focus of the NAHA on housing affordability
and the complexity of measuring the varied other aspects of need.
The Working Group considered that there was value in further conceptual work to be undertaken on
a potential additional indicator rental accommodation is affordable and available to low-income
earners because the existing performance indicator does not provide information on the number of
rental properties that are accessible to low and moderate income households.
36
Recommendations
That COAG agree:

that PI 1: proportion of low income households in rental stress be renamed to refer to
low-income renter households in rental stress;

the reference in Outcome B to ‘housing meeting people’s needs’ be interpreted as
referring to affordability or financial need and assessed through PI 1;

the supplementary measure proportion of low-income rental households in social
housing and rental stress cease to be reported as a measure of NAHA outcomes; and

that the Select Council on Housing and Homelessness report back to COAG on a
potential indicator on rental accommodation that is affordable and available to low
income households in the first quarter of 2013.
3.3 Outcome C: People can purchase affordable housing
Performance Indicator (PI 2): proportion of homes sold or built that are affordable by low and
moderate income households
Performance Indicator (PI5): proportion of Australian households owning or purchasing a home
Supplementary Measure: proportion of low income households in mortgage stress
Output 5: The number of people receiving home purchase assistance
The CRC recommended (CRC 2008-09) in relation to this outcome that:
 the proportion of low-income home owners in housing stress (mortgage stress) be reported as an
indicator under this outcome (the supplementary measure); and
 low-income households be defined as those in the bottom 40 per cent of the equivalised
disposable household income distribution.
3.3.1 Issues
The CRC has expressed concern about the high level of sensitivity of PI 2: proportion of homes sold or
built that are affordable by low and moderate income households to interest rate changes and the
consequent difficulty of attributing progress on the outcome to the performance of governments.
The CRC also expressed concern in relation to PI 5: proportion of Australian households owning or
purchasing a home, that it is not clear which direction of change in this indicator represents progress
towards Outcome C: People can purchase affordable housing.
37
3.3.2 Working Group Considerations
Performance Indicator 2: proportion of homes sold or built that are affordable by low and moderate
income households
The Working Group discussed the definition of income thresholds to be used for this indicator and
noted that equivalised disposable household income (EDHI) is the relevant income measure for
determining households who are relatively less well off than other households with the same
income, since it addresses income taxes paid and the different needs to be met for households of
different size and composition. However, gross household income is a more appropriate measure
for assessing home purchase affordability with homes assessed to be affordable when the
household spends no more than 30 per cent of their gross household income on mortgage payments
(including both capital and interest repayments). This was similar to the agreement reached in
relation to Outcome B. A discussion on equivalence scales is provided at Attachment C.
In relation to the definition of the target group, the Working Group agreed that this outcome is
intended to measure affordability for both low and moderate income households (with incomes up
to 40 per cent and 60 per cent of incomes respectively, adjusted by state and capital city/other
location). The Working Group noted that very few homes would be affordable to the very low
income group (less than one per cent) and so there would be limited value in further reporting
specifically targeting this group.
The Working Group noted an issue around reporting based on the proportion of homes sold for PI 2
as it may not adequately measure housing affordability and the ability of low and moderate income
households to purchase housing. The proportion of total housing sold that is affordable to low and
middle income households is affected by housing sales in the higher end of the market. That is, an
increase in sales of higher end properties would report a relative decline in affordable housing sales,
irrespective of the absolute number of affordable properties. Therefore, no conclusion can be
drawn simply on the direction of movement of the indicator. The Working Group considered that
indicator would be improved by reporting on the rate of affordable homes per 1,000 low and
moderate income households.
The use of actual survey and projected data to enhance the frequency of reporting was identified as
an area for review. The Working Group noted that the income thresholds used for PI 2 are
calculated using data from the ABS SIH, which is published biennially. To meet annual reporting
requirements for the NAHA, in non-survey years projected data is used, which is derived using the
National Centre for Social and Economic Modelling static income model (STINMOD). The Working
Group examined the consistency of the two data sources and found major discrepancies between
actual and projected data. In light of this problem the Working Group considered that it may be
more practical to only report actual data from SIH.
The Working Group also noted that PI 2 reports on the affordability of completed homes that are
sold and excludes information on properties built by their owner on land already purchased
separately by them. While there is some concern over the exclusion of data on the construction
38
value of these owner-built homes, addressing this issue would require significant data
developments. Even if data on owner-builders were reported against, it is expected that the number
would be very small and would not have a significant impact on affordability.
Also PI 2 accounts only for whether housing that is sold or built is affordable to low and moderate
income households, not whether these households actually purchase this housing.
Performance Indicator 5: proportion of Australian households owning or purchasing a home
The Working Group noted that the proportion of Australian households owning or purchasing a
home varied very slowly and therefore did not consider it was a good measure for annual monitoring
of housing affordability. In addition, the CRC has expressed concern that it is not clear which
direction of change in this indicator represents progress towards the outcome (i.e. an increase or
decrease in the proportion of Australian households owning or purchasing a home). The indicator
may report change due to factors that have little to do with affordability, such as demographic
changes and tenure preferences.
PI 5 currently accounts only for households that are owner-occupiers and does not account for
renter households who own housing which they do not live in, although these data are available.
Supplementary mortgage stress measure
The CRC has been using a measure of mortgage stress as a supplementary indicator for this
outcome. The mortgage stress indicator measures the proportion of low-income households
(households with equivalised disposable household income in the bottom two quintiles of the
income distribution) that spend more than 30 per cent of their gross household income on mortgage
payments (including principal and interest). One of the advantages of reporting against the
mortgage stress indicator is that it is readily understandable by the public.
However, the mortgage stress measure does not account for the distribution of housing wealth
amongst low income households. In 2009-10, only 42 per cent of low income households in
mortgage stress had household wealth in the bottom 40 per cent of the household wealth
distribution (SIH unpublished data). The ABS has investigated how the target population for this
indicator may be refined to better reflect the intent of Outcome C.
Conceptually, refining the measure to include only low-income households with low wealth would
better reflect the target population of the outcome. Notwithstanding this, using the mortgage stress
indicator to measure the affordability of home purchase would still be complicated by several
factors. First, the mortgage stress indicator typically is used to measure housing affordability at a
point in time. In this way, the measure may not differentiate between households who are
experiencing a temporary affordability problem, such as due to income volatility, and households
who are in chronic mortgage stress.
Secondly, a key issue with the mortgage stress indicator is how to differentiate the level of control
that households have to manage mortgage stress. As it is currently measured, the mortgage stress
indicator does not account for households who are in mortgage stress but are paying more than the
minimum mortgage payments or are ahead on their payments. For the indicator to better reflect
39
the scope of Outcome C, these households who are ahead on their mortgage repayments or who are
paying more than the minimum payment, should be excluded from reporting.
The ABS estimates that around 45 per cent of low income households in mortgage stress are paying
more than their minimum mortgage repayments. When the target group is refined to low income,
low wealth households, this proportion declines to 40 per cent. As well, the mortgage stress
indicator does not account for households that are purchasing housing outside of the affordable
housing price range. In 2009-10, for example, 72 per cent of low income households in mortgage
stress and 46 per cent of low income, low wealth households in mortgage stress, purchased
dwellings priced in excess of $350,000.
Once these factors are taken into account the population identified as being in mortgage stress
shrinks drastically. Given the small size of the remaining population, there are considerable practical
constraints around measurement and reporting on the small population would require the SIH
sample to be quadrupled to allow effective reporting using this indicator.
3.3.3 Findings and Recommendations
The Working Group considered that PI 2 will provide a more robust measure of Outcome C if the
indicator is changed from the proportion of homes sold or built to the number of homes that are
affordable to low and moderate income households per 1,000 low and moderate income
households. The Working Group noted that the limitations of estimating annual income thresholds
from biennial SIH data need to be taken into account in reporting on PI 2.
In the case of owner-builder households, there is little evidence to suggest that the indicator would
be improved significantly by accounting for these households. The Working Group considered that
low income households should be defined as those in the bottom 40 per cent of the income
distribution based on equivalised disposable household income (and moderate income households
as those in the bottom 60 per cent) and that gross household income should be used as the
appropriate measure for assessing home purchase affordability in the context of PI 2.
The Working Group found PI 5: proportion of Australian households owning or purchasing a home
only measures whether households actually own or purchase housing, not whether this housing is
affordable to them. There is no clear link between the indicator and the outcome. As a result, the
Working Group did not support its retention as a performance indicator although it was agreed that
it may provide useful contextual information.
The Working Group found that although the mortgage stress indicator reported by the CRC as a
supplementary indicator is readily understood by the public, there is evidence that only a relatively
small number of low and moderate income households are in mortgage stress—once high-wealth
households and those ahead in their payments or paying more than the minimum repayment are
excluded from the indicator. Accordingly, the Working Group did not support inclusion of this
supplementary indicator.
40
Recommendations
That COAG agree that:
 PI 2 be changed to the number of homes sold or built per 1,000 low and moderate
income households that are affordable by low and moderate income households;
 PI 5: proportion of Australian households owning or purchasing a home be removed
as an indicator; and
 the supplementary mortgage stress indicator not be included in the NAHA as a
performance indicator.
3.4 Outcome D: People have access to housing through an efficient and
responsive housing market
Performance Indicator: nil
Interim Indicator: The estimated cumulative gap between underlying demand for housing and
housing supply, as a proportion of the increase in underlying demand
Output 6: Number of zoned lots available for residential construction
The CRC made the following recommendations:


Develop and agree to performance indicators to measure progress towards the outcome that
people have access to housing through an efficient and responsive housing market. This could
include endorsing the interim indicator suggested by the National Housing Supply Council
(NHSC) for the baseline report on the NAHA (2008-09); and
Develop [as a priority] a performance indicator for the outcome people have access to housing
through an efficient and responsive market (2009-10).
3.4.1 Issues
When the NAHA was agreed, governments committed to developing indicators in relation to supply
meeting demand for housing and housing market efficiency to support Outcome D, but this has not
occurred. The CRC has proposed use of an interim indicator developed by the NHSC: the estimated
cumulative gap between underlying demand for housing and housing supply, as a proportion of the
increase in underlying demand.
41
3.4.2 Working Group Considerations
The Working Group found that two NAHA outcomes include some measures of access to affordable
housing: Outcome B – People are able to rent housing that meets their needs and Outcome C –
People can purchase affordable housing.
The Working Group agreed that further measuring of performance against Outcome D requires
analysis of two interlinked factors: the efficiency of the housing market and the responsiveness of
the housing market.
The Working Group considered the NHSC definition that the housing market is responsive and
operating efficiently when it:
 responds quickly to changes in effective demand;
 has no distortions to market prices;
 provides market participants with full and accurate information;
 includes environmental and other impacts on third parties in price; and
 provides housing at the lowest cost possible and provide incentives to innovate and provide more
choice to buyers.
The Working Group identified that the interim indicator, the estimated cumulative gap between
underlying demand for housing and housing supply as a proportion of the increase in underlying
demand, is a partial indicator focussing on the responsiveness of the housing market to market
signals. While acknowledging the limits of this measure given the lack of other measures, the
Working Group agreed that it would be useful to adopt this as an interim indicator of this outcome
while other work continues.
The Working Group did note that there some limitations to this measure. The measure accounts
only for unmet underlying demand for housing. Underlying demand is inferred from changes in
population growth and demographic change. Effective demand is actual demand for housing: the
type, location and size of housing owner-occupier households are willing and able to pay for.
Effective demand is impacted by a range of factors, such as incomes, prices, supply of dwellings,
household preferences, as well as the availability and cost of finance. While the NHSC does not
report against actual demand due to data limitations, measuring unmet effective demand for
housing would be required to fully assess the responsiveness of the housing market.
For example, between 2001-02 and 2008-09, effective demand in Western Australia varied
considerably with factors such as a strong building cycle, favourable economic conditions, relatively
low interest rates and spiralling housing prices playing a part. As a result, there were some
indications of oversupply in the market at particular times and in relation to particular types of
housing, while the NHSC underlying demand model indicated that there was a shortfall throughout
the same period. It is possible that the underlying demand model provides a less reliable estimate of
actual demand in jurisdictions undergoing rapid demographic change/experiencing relatively rapid
shifts in population.
42
Nonetheless the Working Group noted that it was not feasible to measure effective demand and
considered measuring underlying demand was the best available proxy.
Jurisdictions have capacity to influence efficiency of housing supply across a range of factors. In
relation to the supply of newly constructed housing, these factors include:





the time and costs involved in preparing and releasing land for greenfield developments;
how easy it is to change land-use;
the alignment between local councils’ land-use plans and the relevant city strategic plan;
the time and costs involved in obtaining development approvals; and
the regulation of land release, planning and construction.
The Working Group has evaluated whether data for reporting against some of these indicators may
be sourced from the National Report on Development Assistance Performance (NRDAP) and
reported under Outcome D broadly (as indicators of housing market efficiency).
States and Territories already report against a set of National Performance Measures in the annual
NRDAP on the health of their planning systems. These include nine performance measures agreed
by the former Local Government and Planning Minsters’ Council in February 2010:
1. Are applications being decided within statutory times?
2. How long do applications typically take to decide?
3. Are business processes for development application processing regularly reviewed, audited
and improved?
4. Do referral assessments meet statutory deadlines?
5. Are referral responses timely?
6. Are low-risk proposals being quickly dealt with?
7. Are e-planning systems being implemented and taken up?
8. Are the outcomes that result from development assessment approvals consistent with
policy objectives?
9. Are decisions generally accepted and implemented?
Performance measures 2 and 6, plus an additional indicator proposed by Western Australia, ‘are
individual development assessment decisions consistent with broader planning policies?’ were
analysed and several concerns were identified with using these NRDAP measures, including
definitional issues and the comparability of data between jurisdictions.
3.4.3 Findings and Recommendations
The Working Group agreed that there are benefits to continued reporting against the interim
indicator, the estimated cumulative gap between underlying demand for housing and housing supply
as a proportion of the increase in underlying demand, as long as the limitations of this measure, in
43
particular, the underlying assumptions and the difference between effective and underlying
demand, are clearly noted.
The Working Group also noted that States and Territories are already reporting against a set of
National Performance Measures in the annual NRDAP. While there are currently data limitations,
these measures may in the future provide useful information on this outcome in the NAHA. The
Working Group agreed that, given the current state of the data, these measures were not able to be
included as indicators at this time, but that there was merit in the Standing Council on Transport and
Infrastructure continuing work to improve the data to support these indicators and advising the
Select Council on Housing and Homelessness on progress in early 2013.
Recommendations
That COAG agree that:
 the National Housing Supply Council indicator: Estimated cumulative gap between
underlying demand for housing and housing supply, as a proportion of the increase in
underlying demand be adopted as a performance indicator, noting ongoing data
development being undertaken by the National Housing Supply Council to improve
the indicator;
 the Select Council on Housing and Homelessness be requested to report on any
proposed improvements to the above indicator in the first quarter of 2013; and
 the Standing Council on Transport and Infrastructure be requested to continue work
underway on development of the data supporting the indicators for the National
Report on Development Assessment Performance (NRDAP), and advise the Select
Council on Housing and Homelessness on progress in early 2013 to inform
consideration of indicators to be included in future NAHA performance reports.
44
3.5 Outcome E: Indigenous people have the same housing opportunities
(in relation to homelessness services, housing rental, housing purchase
and access to housing) through an efficient and responsive housing
market
Performance Indicator (PI 6): Proportion of Indigenous households owning or purchasing a home
The COAG Reform Council (CRC) has recommended that:
 The performance indicators for the outcome
Indigenous people have the same housing opportunities (in relation to homelessness
services, housing rental, housing purchase and access to housing through an efficient and
responsive housing market) as other Australians
are each of the indicators used to report on the outcomes relating to homelessness, rental
affordability, home purchase affordability, and market efficiency and responsiveness,
disaggregated by Indigenous status.
3.5.1 Issues
The key issue is whether this outcome should be measured by disaggregation of relevant NAHA
indicators or whether Indigenous specific indicators should be developed for each relevant outcome.
The NAHA currently only has one performance indicator that provides disaggregated reporting
against an aspect of outcome, PI 6.
PI 6 only measures one aspect of the outcome, the proportion of Indigenous households owning or
purchasing a home. Although the performance indicator assesses opportunity for participation in
the home purchase market, which has the potential to lead to economic independence, it has very
limited bearing on, for example, access to housing services, rental accommodation, or housing
market efficiency and responsiveness.
To measure the overall progress towards the outcome, the CRC has used indicators from other
outcomes and disaggregated them by the Indigenous status of people and households where
appropriate, and has sought COAG endorsement of this approach.
3.5.2 Working Group Considerations
The Working Group considered two alternatives:


presenting the outcome by disaggregation of relevant NAHA indicators; or
developing Indigenous specific indicators for each component of the outcome.
The Working Group noted that all relevant indicators can be disaggregated by Indigenous status:

Of the nine reportable performance indicators, five are disaggregated by Indigenous status, and
a further three are specific to Indigenous households only (non-Indigenous data are not
currently reported for these outputs) (as shown in the table below).
45

Of the five reportable outputs, four are disaggregated by Indigenous status.
Performance indicators in the National Affordable Housing Agreement
Performance indicator
Reporting by Indigenous Status
1. Proportion of low income households in rental stress
Y
2. Proportion of homes sold or built that are affordable by low and
moderate income households
3. Proportion of Australians who are homeless
Y
4. Proportion of people experiencing repeat periods of homelessness
Y
5. Proportion of Australian households owning or purchasing a home
Y
6. Proportion of Indigenous households owning or purchasing a home
Y*
7. Proportion of Indigenous households living in overcrowded
conditions
8. Proportion of Indigenous households living in houses of an
acceptable standard
9. Supply meeting demand for housing
Y*
10. Housing market efficiency
..
Y
Y*
N
.. Not applicable. An indicator and/or measure has yet to be developed for this output.
* Indicator is specific to Indigenous households.
The only indicator which cannot report outcomes for Indigenous people, PI 9, relating to supply
meeting demand, is intended to measure overall market operation and the Working Group saw this
as inappropriate for disaggregation given it is a community-level indicator.
In relation to the indicators that report outcomes for Indigenous people only (PIs 6, 7, and 8), the
Working Group noted that comparative data are available for non-Indigenous households for PI 7,
but is not currently available for PI 8. With regards to PI 6: proportion of Indigenous households
owning or purchasing a home, a review of Outcome C has concluded that PI 5: proportion of
Australian households owning or purchasing a home, should be removed as an indicator of
performance, but reported on for context alone. The Working Group concluded none-the-less that
there is value in reporting on Indigenous home ownership as the opportunity to take up home
ownership is an important aspect of having the same housing opportunities as other Australians.
The Working Group noted that the key data sources (the National Aboriginal and Torres Strait
Islander Social Survey (NATSISS) and the National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Health Survey
(NATSIHS)) are available on an alternating three yearly cycle. The Working Group assessed whether
more regular data collection is necessary and noted that these surveys are synchronized and are
designed to be comparable between cycles.
46
The usefulness of producing geographical breakdowns by remoteness was also considered by the
Working Group.
3.5.3 Findings and Recommendations
The Working Group agreed to the disaggregation of relevant NAHA indicators as the preferred
approach to measuring this outcome, with retention of PI 6, even if the corresponding indicator
PI 5 is removed. However, the Working Group agreed that it was not appropriate to
disaggregate market and community level indicators such as those relating to housing supply.
The Working Group agreed that, while there are limitations in current data, development of
Indigenous specific indicators for each relevant outcome was not necessary. It has been identified
that developing Indigenous specific indicators will result in significant additional work and limited
additional benefit as in most cases the same data would be reported.
Recommendations
That COAG agree to:


retain PI 6: proportion of Indigenous households owning or purchasing a home; and
disaggregate data on relevant NAHA performance indicators.
3.6 Outcome F: Indigenous people have improved housing amenity and
reduced overcrowding, particularly in remote areas and discrete
communities
Performance Indicator (PI 7): proportion of Indigenous households living in overcrowded conditions
Performance Indicator (PI 8): proportion of Indigenous households living in houses of an acceptable
standard
Supplementary measure: proportion of Indigenous households living in social housing living in
overcrowded conditions
Output: The number of Indigenous households provided with safe and appropriate housing
The CRC (2008-09) has made the following recommendations for performance indicators for this
outcome:
 Investigate possible enhancements to data collections, and/or the development of additional
performance measures, which would allow comparative reporting of progress towards achieving
improved amenity and reduced overcrowding for Indigenous people in remote areas or discrete
communities.
47
 Consider whether the standard of ‘acceptable housing’ used in the current report is appropriate,
taking into account general expectations of acceptable housing in Australia.
 Develop a measure of the proportion of Indigenous households living in social housing of an
acceptable condition. This measure should be as consistent as possible with the general measure
of the proportion of Indigenous households living in housing of an acceptable standard.
3.6.1 Issues
The key issues with the current performance indicators, PI 7: proportion of Indigenous households
living in overcrowded conditions, and PI 8: proportion of Indigenous households living in houses of an
acceptable standard, include:




the indicators do not reflect the outcome’s focus on remote and discrete communities;
new data are only available every three years;
the main data sources, the NATSISS and the NATSIHS, can report level of remoteness nationally
but cannot reliably disaggregate information on remote and discrete communities at the substate level for all jurisdictions; and
there is concern that the definition of an acceptable standard, the ABS standard, differs from
what would be considered acceptable in the general community.
3.6.2 Working Group Considerations
A supplementary measure of overcrowding has been developed, which is proportion of Indigenous
households living in social housing in overcrowded conditions. The measure aims to show the
incidence of overcrowding among Indigenous households across the different forms of social
housing. Over time it will provide insight into whether housing services are helping to address the
problem of overcrowding in Indigenous households. Similar to the primary measure of
overcrowding, the supplementary measure uses the Canadian National Occupancy Standard
(Households that require one or more additional bedrooms to meet the standard are considered to
be overcrowded), to define overcrowding.
However, there are also significant issues with the supplementary measure. While it can be
reported more frequently, it also cannot be disaggregated to report on outcomes in remote and
discrete communities. The measure draws on administrative data that is not able to be aggregated
across program types (such as public housing and State-Owned and Managed Indigenous Housing
(SOMIH)) and does not allow reliable comparisons between jurisdictions, or over time. While the
CRC has been able to report on the relevant supplementary indicator using data on public housing
and SOMIH, the community housing data available to the council is incomplete (not available for all
relevant jurisdictions), and has significant quality issues in terms of accuracy and comparability
across jurisdictions.
It is anticipated that ongoing refinement and data development in this area, while improving data
quality, may limit the ability to make comparisons over time in the immediate future.
48
In relation to PI 8: proportion of Indigenous households living in houses of an acceptable standard,
the Working Group noted the ABS definition of ‘acceptable standard’ which defines acceptable
standard in relation to working facilities and structural faults. However, it is noted that this indicator
will not pick up all improvements in housing amenity where they do not result in the dwelling
crossing the line of acceptable standard (for example, improvements to a dwelling that is already
above an acceptable standard).
Also, as with PI 7, the indicator needs to be able to be disaggregated by remoteness and location to
address the primary part of the outcome. These disaggregations can only be reported on with
sufficient reliability at the national level.
The AIHW, in consultation with States and Territories and FaHCSIA, is considering further data
development using the ABS standard. The 2012 National Social Housing Survey aims to address
gaps in output reporting, however the effectiveness of this reporting will depend on the data quality
and response rates from the survey. It is understood that the previous face-to-face component of
SOMIH has been replaced with a mail-out survey (as per the Public Housing process) and the survey
does not extend to Indigenous community housing tenants.
3.6.3 Findings and Recommendations
The Working Group found that the two existing performance indicators do not reflect the main focus
of the outcome and recommends revising the existing indicators to include a reference to remote
and discrete communities. The Working Group considered that data required enhancement to
improve reporting on progress towards outcomes in remote and discrete communities.
Data for these performance indicators are sourced from the rolling three-yearly cycle of Australian
Bureau of Statistics (ABS) Indigenous surveys the National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander
Health Survey (NATSIHS) and the National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Survey
(NATSISS). The Working Group:

noted that the financial and non-financial costs of increasing data collection in remote and very
remote areas could outweigh any benefits such as improved reliability of the data; and

agreed it would be appropriate for the Select Council on Housing and Homelessness to consider
alternative and/or new data sources to allow more reliable reporting on remote and discrete
communities, and to report back to COAG in the first quarter of 2013 on the costs and benefits
of improving data for reporting on this outcome.
The Working Group agreed to adopt the ABS survey definition that dwellings are regarded as being
of an acceptable standard if they have four working facilities (for washing people, for washing
clothes/bedding, for storing/preparing food, and sewerage) and have no more than two major
structural problems (major cracks in walls or floors, major plumbing problems, and wood rot or
termite damage), which was considered a robust measure.
The supplementary indicator: proportion of Indigenous households living in social housing in
overcrowded conditions was considered useful and should be retained. Development of a
supplementary indicator relating to the proportion of Indigenous households living in social housing
49
of an acceptable condition was also supported noting that reporting will depend on data quality in
the 2012 National Social Housing Survey.
As the CRC has noted, adequate and safe housing for Indigenous people is an important factor
contributing to Closing the Gap in Indigenous Disadvantage, in particular, targets relating to closing
the gap in life expectancy within a generation, halving the gap in mortality rates for children under
five in a decade and halving the gap for Indigenous students in reading, writing and literacy within a
decade. The Working Group considers that PIs 7 and 8 should be important contributors to
reporting on governments’ achievements in Closing the Gap targets.
Recommendations
That COAG agree to:
 revise PI 7: proportion of Indigenous households living in overcrowded conditions, to
add including in remote and discrete communities;
 revise PI 8: proportion of Indigenous households living in houses of an acceptable
standard to add including in remote and discrete communities;
 retain the supplementary indicator relating to overcrowding in social housing and
explore whether data from the 2012 National Social Housing Survey is of sufficient
quality to report a supplementary indicator on dwelling adequacy; and

request the Select Council on Housing and Homelessness to consider alternative data
and the development of additional data sources to allow reporting on remote and
discrete communities as required under the outcome and to report back to COAG in
the first quarter of 2013 on the costs and benefits of improving data and reporting.
4. Performance Benchmarks, Outputs and Data Collection
There is a range of other matters that the Working Group was asked to consider under its terms of
reference relating to CRC recommendations:
 Consider the development of performance benchmarks or targets for inclusion in the National
Affordable Housing Agreement, to better allow the tracking of governments’ progress towards
the outcomes in the agreement (CRC 2008-09).
 Consider whether and how output measures could be further developed to assist with reporting
on the outcomes in the agreement (CRC 2009-10).
 Consider whether the outputs in the National Affordable Housing Agreement are sufficiently
precise and measurable, and suggest refinements where necessary. Develop and define
nationally consistent measures of each output, where this has not yet occurred (CRC 2008-09).
 Development of robust and comparable data on mainstream and Indigenous community housing
(CRC 2009-10).
50
 That COAG confirm that administrative data provided for each report should relate to the
relevant reporting year (CRC 2008-09).
 Consider whether more frequent [data] collections would be appropriate, taking into account
costs and benefits and the council’s annual reporting requirements (CRC 2008-09).
The Working Group was also asked to:
 note the importance of data collection in relation to young people and people with disability; and
 consider the role of the NAHA performance framework in supporting the achievement of the
COAG Closing the Gap targets, including measuring the achievement of Indigenous outputs and
outcomes.
This section of the report outlines the Working Group’s considerations and recommendations in
relation to these issues.
4.1 Performance Benchmarks
The Intergovernmental Agreement on Federal Financial Relations (IGA) states that reporting under
the framework for federal financial relations will be in respect of:
a) the comparative performance of government achievement against objectives, outcomes,
outputs and performance benchmarks in areas covered by National Agreements; and
b) the achievement of governments of objectives, outcomes, outputs and performance
benchmarks in areas covered by National Agreements.9
When COAG considered the outcomes of the HoTs Review of National Agreements, National
Partnerships and Implementation Plans, it agreed that the underlying reform principles of the IGA
continue to provide a strong foundation for progressing COAG’s agreed reform agenda and achieving
better policy and service delivery outcomes for all Australians. COAG agreed to establish a working
group to take forward the key recommendations and to tackle deficiencies in the design of current
agreements identified by the HoTs Review.
In relation to benchmarks for performance indicators, the HoTs Review stated that “benchmarks are
used to inform the general community about the effectiveness of government activities”.10 The
HoTs Review commented that, for National Agreements, performance benchmarks should be “few
in number, high-level and reflect the highest order, most challenging goals toward attainment of
outcomes”.
The CRC has previously considered the absence of performance benchmarks in its report on
performance under the NAHA in 2008–09. The NAHA is the only national agreement without
performance benchmarks. The CRC recommended consideration of the development of
performance benchmarks or targets for inclusion in the NAHA to allow better tracking of
9
op. cit. Clause C4
op. cit.
10
51
governments’ progress towards the outcomes in the agreement. The current performance indicators
for outcomes in the NAHA do not technically comply with the HoTs conceptual framework, which
states it is imperative that the direction of change that represents progress against an outcome is
specified. However, the desired direction of change is implicit in the performance indicators of the
proposed framework.
The IGA stated that ‘National Agreements may also include a limited number of outcomes focussed
performance benchmarks, against some performance indicators. Performance benchmarks can
provide the community with an indication of the rate of progress being made against agreed
outcomes.’11
Benchmarks in Existing Agreements
There are existing benchmarks which could form the basis for NAHA performance indicators in two
related agreements, the NPAH and the NPARIH:
 proportion of Australians who are homeless - 7 per cent reduction in homelessness by 2013 from
levels identified in the 2006 Census.
 proportion of Indigenous Australians who are homeless – 33.3 per cent reduction by 2013.
 Overcrowding and homelessness average occupancy rate
o average occupancy per remote dwelling to reduce by 2018
o reduce number of overcrowded dwellings by 4,200 by 2018
o reduce homelessness in remote Australia by 30 per cent by 2013 and 50 per cent by 2018.
Existing Performance Benchmarks in Jurisdictions
There are also a number of performance benchmarks contained in Strategic Plans of South Australia,
Western Australia, Northern Territory and the Australian Capital Territory. These may also be useful
examples of long-term benchmarks (from 2001 to 2014 in SA, 2009 to 2020 in WA, 2007 to 2018 in
the ACT):
 halving the number of South Australians experiencing housing stress by 2014 (SA);
 increasing the number of Government assisted affordable housing options from 48,756 as at June
2009 by 8,000 in June 2015 and by 20,000 in June 2020 for households on low to moderate
incomes (WA);
 15 per cent of all new land releases to provide new affordable and social housing (NT); and
 Increase the supply of affordable rental housing by 250 dwellings by 2013 and 500 by 2018 (ACT).
After consideration, the Working Group supported the inclusion of provisional performance
benchmarks with targets, as long as they took into account the funding available and were based on
indicators that are within the ability of jurisdictions to influence. These provisional benchmarks will
be developed by officials from all jurisdictions for consideration by COAG in October 2012, to be
reviewed following the Standing Council on Federal Financial Relations’ review of funding adequacy
in 2013.
11
IGA Clause E14
52
The current performance indicators in the NAHA do not fully comply with the HoTs conceptual
framework. The framework states that it is necessary to specify the direction of change that
represents progress towards an outcome for an indicator to be meaningful. It is noted that the
desired direction of change is fairly intuitive for all indicators except PI 5, which the Working Group
suggests be removed. For clarity, this report specifies agreed directions of change for all
recommended indicators in Attachment B.
Recommendation
That COAG agree:

that officials from all jurisdictions will develop provisional performance benchmarks
with quantifiable targets for the NAHA, reflecting current funding levels and what is in
control of jurisdictions to influence, for consideration by COAG in October 2012, to be
reviewed following the Standing Council on Federal Financial Relations’ review of
funding adequacy in 2013.
4.2 Outputs
The CRC made a number of recommendations about improving reporting on outputs. The NAHA
contains seven outputs and requires that the CRC report annually on the outputs. This treatment is
different to most other National Agreements which do not mandate reporting on all outputs.
However, most National Agreements do have individual output indicators in their performance
frameworks such as enrolment figures in the National Education Agreement and the National
Indigenous Reform Agreement and the number of higher qualification completions target in the
National Agreement on Skills and Workforce Development.
The aim of the IGA is to focus on the achievement of outcomes. This can best be done by using
outcome indicators. But where there are no suitable outcome indicators or where outcome
indicators are not available in a timely and regular manner, reporting on outputs may be used
instead of, or to supplement, outcome indicators. The Working Group also undertook preliminary
analysis of the value of outputs where performance indicators are not adequate.
The CRC recommended in 2008–09, in relation to outputs, that COAG note the following suggestions
for improvement to the performance reporting framework and refer them to the Head of Treasuries
Committee on Federal Financial Relations for further consideration and prioritisation, in consultation
with the Housing and Homelessness Information Management Group:
 Consider whether the outputs in the National Affordable Housing Agreement are sufficiently
precise and measurable, and suggest refinements where necessary;
 Develop and define nationally consistent measures of each output, where this has not yet
occurred; and
 in 2009–10, consideration of whether and how output measures could be further developed to
assist with reporting on the outcomes in the agreement.
53
The Working Group reviewed the reporting for all outcomes.
Outcome A - People who are homeless or at risk of homelessness achieve sustainable housing and
social inclusion
Outcome A is supported by two outputs:
 Output 1: Number of people who are homeless or at risk of homelessness who are assisted to
secure and sustain their tenancies
 Output 2: Number of people who are assisted to move from crisis accommodation or primary
homelessness to sustainable accommodation
The first output is measured through three proxy measures:
 Number of Specialist Homelessness Services (SHS) clients who had house/flat tenure after
support
 Number of households newly assisted into social housing that were homeless or at risk of
homelessness at the time of allocation
 Number of households assisted into social housing that were homeless or at risk of homelessness
at time of allocation and who sustain their tenancies for 12 months or more.
The CRC has not made any comments specifically in relation to the homelessness outputs. The
Working Group notes that the outputs draw on the SHS data collection and thus focus on a sub-set
of the homeless population that use these services. The Working Group noted the use of numbers
rather than a proportion means that the results will change based on a wide variety of economic and
social factors, such as population growth and supply of services, which may not have any bearing on
outcomes. However, unlike the current indicators, the outputs focus directly on the effects of
assistance, which assists in addressing the outcome of ensuring people who are homeless or at risk
of achieving sustainable housing.
The Working Group concluded it would be appropriate for CRC reporting of these outputs to
continue using number and proportion as appropriate. This output reporting would be similar to
and consistent with reporting for the NPAH indicators, recently endorsed by COAG when it agreed to
the review of the NPAH reporting framework. The desired direction of change would be an increase.
Outcome B – People are able to rent housing that meets their needs
This outcome is supported by two outputs:
 Output 3: Number of households assisted in social housing
 Output 4: Number of households in private rental receiving subsidies
The Working Group noted that the review is not recommending any change to the focus of PI 1 on
rental stress in the private market and is recommending discontinuation of CRC reporting on rental
54
stress for social housing tenants. In this context, the Working Group concluded that continued
reporting on Output 3 and 4 would supplement reporting on PI 1. Reporting on those receiving
Commonwealth Rent Assistance (CRA) for Output 4, including the numbers receiving maximum rate,
would provide additional information on rental affordability for income recipients. Information on
other forms of rental assistance would provide useful information to the public on assistance
provided to households in need.
The Working Group considered that reporting on the number of households in social housing also
supplemented outcome reporting. The social housing market is around one sixth of the private
rental market and around 30 per cent the size of the low income private rental market. Around
390,000 households are in social housing in comparison to around 1.1 million income units receiving
CRA. The majority of social housing tenants consider that social housing meets their needs12,
making reporting on this sector relevant to consideration of achievement of the outcome. ABS data
on building construction has also demonstrated some fluctuation in new public housing
construction.13
The Working Group notes the CRC recommendation (2009-10) that data on mainstream and
Indigenous community housing be improved. Given the growing importance of community housing
as part of the social housing sector, and the importance of Indigenous community housing, the
Working Group noted the importance of improving community housing data.
Outcome C – People can purchase affordable housing
Outcome C is supported by Output 5 – The number of people receiving home purchase assistance.
The Working Group notes home purchase assistance provides a relatively small contribution to
home purchase affordability. However jurisdictions provide a range of assistance which fluctuates
over time. It is considered that reporting on this assistance aids public understanding of the
assistance being provided by governments.
Outcome D – People have access to housing through an efficient and responsive housing market
Outcome D is supported by one output measure: Output (6): Number of zoned lots available for
residential construction.
The Working Group noted that there are no nationally consistent data on this output.
12
13
AIHW, Housing assistance in Australia 2011, June 2011.
ABS, 8731.0 - Building Approvals, Australia, April 2012.
55
Outcome E - Indigenous people have the same housing opportunities (in relation to homelessness
services, housing rental, housing purchase and access to housing) through an efficient and
responsive housing market
There are no outputs that contribute specifically to this outcome. The CRC reports other outputs
disaggregated by Indigenous status where possible.
Outcome F – Indigenous people have improved housing amenity and reduced overcrowding,
particularly in remote areas and discrete communities
The outcome is currently supported by Output 7, the number of Indigenous households provided
with safe and appropriate housing.
The Working Group noted concerns regarding the measurement of this output relating to the
inconsistency between the terms used for the output and the outcome. The Working Group noted
that the concept of ‘safe and appropriate housing’ used in this output reflected Indigenous priorities
of previous housing agreements and there is not currently an agreed definition of safe and
appropriate.
The Working Group noted that some information is available to provide context for this outcome
which could be used to report on outputs:
 The Overcoming Indigenous Disadvantage: Key Indicators 2009 report (SCRGSP 2009b) provides
data on overcrowding in housing and also access to clean water, functional sewerage and
electricity services.
 The AIHW (2009c) report Indigenous housing needs 2009: a multi-measure needs model presents
the most recent data on the level of Indigenous housing need across the five dimensions of
homelessness, overcrowding, affordability, dwelling condition and connection to essential
services.
The Working Group has been asked to consider the role of the NAHA performance framework in
supporting the achievement of the COAG Closing the Gap targets, including measuring the
achievement of Indigenous outputs and outcomes. The Working Group considers that it would be
useful to have reporting on the number of new social housing dwellings built for Indigenous
households in remote areas and discrete communities.
The Working Group also noted that there is currently no reporting of connection to essential
services, an important element of achieving Closing the Gap health outcomes. Around 14 per cent
of discrete Indigenous communities do not have all permanent dwellings connected to an organised
supply of water and 11.6 per cent do not have all permanent dwellings connected to electricity
(AIHW, above). It is suggested that this issue be referred for consideration in the review of the
NPARIH, due in 2012.
56
Recommendation
That COAG note:

that the Working Group supported the continued provision of performance
information on outputs by the CRC where appropriate data are available.
4.3 Data Collection Issues
The Working Group noted that ABS SIH data can be disaggregated by age, to identify young people,
and in 2009–10 for people with disability.
Further work is required to improve data collection in relation for future collection of data on people
with disability.
In relation to CRC recommendations about the timeliness of data provision and the frequency of
reporting, the Working Group considers that administrative data provided for each report should
relate to the relevant reporting year. The need for more frequent data was identified in relation to
reporting on homelessness, discussed in detail under Outcome A. The need for improved data for
Indigenous housing need was also identified.
57
5. Attachments
5.1 Attachment A: Working Group Response to CRC Recommendations
COAG Reform Council: Report on the National Affordable Housing Agreement
(NAHA) 2009-10
Recommendation
COAG Response
NAHA Working Group Response
Agreed
Recommendation 4 addresses this.
The Working Group supports the
adoption of the National Housing
Supply Council’s indicator:
Estimated cumulative gap between
underlying demand for housing and
housing supply, noting ongoing data
development being undertaken by
the National Housing Supply Council
to improve the indicator.
Noted and referred for
consideration in the review of the
NAHA announced by COAG on
13 February 2011
Recommendation 6 addresses this
by proposing that the Select Council
on Housing and Homelessness
consider alternative data and
additional data resources.
Noted and referred for
consideration in the review of the
NAHA announced by COAG on
The Working Group considered
output measures and agreed to
support the continued provision of
Recommendation 1 (a):
The COAG Reform Council
recommends that COAG:
endorse the following
priorities for improving the
performance reporting
framework of the National
Affordable Housing
Agreement:
 development of a
performance
indicator for the
outcome people have
access to housing
through an efficient
and responsive
housing market
Recommendation 1 (b):
The COAG Reform Council
recommends that COAG:
endorse the following
priorities for improving the
performance reporting
framework of the National
Affordable Housing
Agreement:
 development of
robust and
comparable data on
mainstream and
Indigenous
community housing
Recommendation 1 (c):
58
The COAG Reform Council
recommends that COAG:
endorse the following
priorities for improving the
performance reporting
framework of the National
Affordable Housing
Agreement:
 consideration of
whether and how
output measures
could be further
developed to assist
with reporting on the
outcomes in the
agreement.
13 February 2011
performance information on outputs
by the CRC where appropriate data
are available.
Agreed
The Working Group considered
these recommendations in the
report of the Review of the NAHA
Performance Reporting Framework.
Recommendation 2:
The COAG Reform Council
recommends that COAG:
refer these priorities, along with
the recommendations made in
the council’s 2008-09 baseline
report, to the review of the
National Affordable Housing
Agreement announced by COAG
on 13 February 2011.
COAG Reform Council: Report on the National Affordable Housing Agreement
(NAHA) 2008-09
Recommendation
COAG Response
NAHA Working Group Response
Agreed
The Working Group supports the
CRC’s view that administrative data
provided for each report should
relate to the relevant reporting year
where possible.
Noted and referred to the working
group to consider as part of its
review of the agreements outlined
above.
Recommendation 1 addresses the
potential of work on the inter-censal
counts of homelessness. Census
estimates should be more accurate
in the future, following the ABS
Recommendation 1:
The COAG Reform Council
recommends that COAG confirm
that administrative data
provided for each report should
relate to the relevant reporting
year.
Recommendation 2:
The COAG Reform Council
recommends that COAG note
the current review by the
Australian Bureau of Statistics of
the Counting the Homeless
59
methodology, and ask the
Housing Ministers Conference to
report on options for improving
the count of homeless people in
Australia.
Recommendation 3:
The COAG Reform Council
recommends that:
a) COAG agree that the
measure for the
performance indicator
‘the proportion of lowincome households in
rental stress’ be refined
to exclude non-renter
households, in order to
better measure
performance against
the outcome that
‘people are able to rent
housing that meets
their needs’
review.
Noted and referred to the working
group to consider as part of its
review of the agreements outlined
above.
b) the proportion of lowincome home owners in
housing stress instead
be reported as an
indicator under the
outcome that ‘people
are able to purchase
affordable housing’.
a) Recommendation 2 addresses
this. The Working Group supports
renaming the indicator to
proportion of low income renter
households in rental stress.
b) Recommendation 3 addresses
this. The Working Group did not
support the inclusion of the
supplementary measure of low
income home owners in housing
stress in the NAHA as a performance
indicator.
Recommendation 4:
The COAG Reform Council
recommends that:
a)
For all relevant
performance indicators
in the National
Affordable Housing
Agreement, low-income
households be defined
as those in the bottom
40 per cent of
equivalised disposable
household income.
Noted and referred to the working
group to consider as part of its
review of the agreements outlined
above
The Working Group supports the
definition of low income households
as those in the bottom 40 per cent
of households with equivalised
disposable household income – see
discussion on Outcome B and
Outcome C.
Recommendation 5:
The COAG Reform Council
recommends that:
a)
COAG agree that
Noted and referred to the working
group to consider as part of its
review of the agreements outlined
above.
60
a)Recommendation 5 addresses this.
performance indicators
for the outcome
The Working Group supports the
disaggregation of data on relevant
NAHA indicators by Indigenous
status for Outcome E.
Indigenous people have
the same housing
opportunities (in
relation to
homelessness services,
housing rental, housing
purchase and access to
housing through an
efficient and responsive
housing market) as
other Australians
are each of the
indicators used to
report on the outcomes
relating to
homelessness, rental
affordability, home
purchase affordability,
and market efficiency
and responsiveness,
disaggregated by
Indigenous status
Recommendation 6:
The COAG Reform Council
recommends that:
COAG note the issues and
suggestions for
improvement to the
performance reporting
framework listed below, and
refer them to the Heads of
Treasuries Committee on
Federal Financial Relations
for further consideration
and prioritization, in
consultation with the
Housing and Homelessness
Information Management
Group.
a)
Noted and referred to the working
group to consider as part of its
review of the agreements outlined
above.
a) Recommendation 1 addresses this
in relation to the homelessness
indicators. The Working Group
noted the potential of work on intercensal counts of homelessness to
address frequency issues with
homelessness indicators that
Measuring
performance
Consider whether more
frequent collections
would be appropriate,
61
taking into account
costs and benefits and
the council’s annual
reporting
requirements.
currently rely on 5 yearly Census
data . The Working Group
considered the high costs and
minimal benefits of more frequent
collections for the remaining
performance indicators.
b) Benchmarks and
targets
b) Recommendation 7 addresses
this. The majority of the Working
Group does not support the
inclusion of performance
benchmarks, as it was considered
that the NAHA did not provide
sufficient additional resources to
make commitments to particular
benchmarks appropriate. There was
also some concern that attainment
on some outcomes was subject to a
range of factors and beyond the sole
control of jurisdictions.
Consider the
development of
performance
benchmarks or targets
for inclusion in the
National Affordable
Housing Agreement, to
better allow the
tracking of
governments’ progress
towards the outcomes
in the agreement.
The Commonwealth dissented from
this view and considered that given
the resources provided under the
NAHA ($1.3 billion per annum from
2012-13) it was reasonable to set
some key benchmarks to indicate to
the community the progress that
jurisdictions were working towards.
The Commonwealth developed
benchmarks for key indicators for
consideration, incorporating
benchmarks already agreed in the
National Partnership Agreement on
Homelessness and the National
Partnership Agreement on Remote
Indigenous Housing.
c)
c) Recommendation 1 addresses
this.
The Working Group considered that
the achievement of sustainable
housing by the homeless is strongly
linked to reduction of social
exclusion and that the proportion of
people experiencing repeat
homelessness is a suitable indicator
for both the social inclusion and
sustainable housing aspects of this
outcome especially if supported by
the relevant output measures.
Outcome: People who
are homeless or at risk
of homelessness
achieve sustainable
housing and social
inclusion.
Investigate the
development of
additional performance
indicators that measure
whether people who
are homeless or at risk
62
of homelessness are
achieving sustainable
housing and social
inclusion.
The Working Group noted the
potential of work on inter-censal
counts of homelessness to improve
reporting under the NAHA.
The Working Group noted that
measuring repeat periods of
homelessness for the whole
homelessness population is not
possible within existing data
collections and that existing
reporting of repeat homelessness
through the former SAAP and the
new SHS data collection is adequate.
Investigate the
development of intercensal proxy measures,
based on new or
existing administrative
data collections, that
could be used to
indicate changes in the
homeless population
on a yearly basis.
Expedite the
development of a
measure of repeat
homelessness.
d) Recommendation 2 addresses
this. The Working Group supported
the interpretation of ‘housing
meeting people’s needs’ as referring
to affordability or financial need and
that this should be assessed through
P1.
d) Outcome: People are
able to rent housing
that meets their needs
Investigate the
development of
additional performance
indicators for this
outcome, focusing
specifically on the
extent to which rental
accommodation meets
tenants’ needs.
e)
e) Recommendation 4 addresses
this. The Working Group supports
the adoption of the National
Housing Supply Council indicator:
Estimated cumulative gap between
underlying demand for housing and
housing supply, noting ongoing data
development being undertaken by
the National Housing Supply Council
to improve the indicator.
Outcome: People have
access to housing
through an efficient
and responsive housing
market
Develop and agree to
performance indicators
to measure progress
towards the outcome
that ‘people have
access to housing
through an efficient
and responsive housing
market’. This could
63
include endorsing the
interim indicator
suggested by the
National Housing
Supply Council for the
baseline report on the
National Affordable
Housing Agreement.
f)
f) Recommendation 6 addresses
this. The Working Group has
proposed that the Select Council on
Housing and Homelessness consider
alternative data and the
development of additional data
sources to allow reporting on
remote and discrete communities
and to report back to COAG in the
first quarter of 2013 on the costs
and benefits of improving data and
reporting.
Outcome: Indigenous
people have improved
housing amenity and
reduced overcrowding,
particularly in remote
areas and discrete
communities
Investigate possible
enhancements to data
collections, and/or the
development of
additional performance
measures, which would
allow comparative
reporting of progress
towards achieving
improved amenity and
reduced overcrowding
for Indigenous people
in remote areas or
discrete communities.
The Working Group considers that
the use of the ABS definition of
‘acceptable standard’ which defines
acceptable standard in relation to
working facilities and structural
faults is appropriate.
Consider whether the
standard of ‘acceptable
housing’ used in the
current report is
appropriate, taking into
account general
expectations of
acceptable housing in
Australia
Recommendation 6 addresses this.
Develop a measure of
the proportion of
Indigenous households
living in social housing
of an acceptable
condition. This
measure should be as
consistent as possible
with the general
measure of the
proportion of
Indigenous households
64
living in housing of an
acceptable standard.
g)
g)The Working Group considered
that there is further work required
ensure that outputs are sufficiently
precise and measureable. The
Working Group has identified that
there is no nationally consistent data
for output 6 and that there are no
outputs for Outcome E(although
relevant outputs are disaggregated
by Indigenous status where possible)
and that there is not an agreed
definition of safe and appropriate
housing for Output 7 and that there
was an inconsistency in terms
between Output 7 and Outcome F.
Working Group considers that it
would be useful to report on the
number of new social housing
dwellings build for Indigenous
households in remote areas and
discrete communities..
Reporting of outputs
Consider whether the
outputs in the National
Affordable Housing
Agreement are
sufficiently precise and
measurable, and
suggest refinements
where necessary.
The Working Group considered
output measures and agreed to
support the continued provision of
performance information on outputs
by the CRC where appropriate data
are available
Develop and define
nationally consistent
measures of each
output, where this has
not yet occurred.
5.2 Attachment B: Possible Performance Benchmarks
Performance
Indicator
Possible
Performance
Benchmark
Data source
/NAHA Baseline
2008–09
Rationale
PI 2: Number of
homes sold or built
per 1,000 low and
moderate
households that
are affordable by
low and moderate
income households
Increase to 50
homes sold or
built per 1,000
low and moderate
households that
are affordable by
low and moderate
income
households by
2015–16,
Valuer Generals’
data; ABS Survey
of Income and
Housing 2007–08.
This benchmark reflects
continuation of the improvement
that has been experienced in
recent years. The number of
affordable homes sold or built per
1,000 low and moderate income
households that were affordable to
low and moderate income
households was 27.7 in 2007–08
and 35.5 in 2009–10 which
corresponds to an improvement of
65
The preferred
direction of a
benchmark would
be an increase.
PI 3: Proportion of
7 per cent
Australians who are reduction in
homeless
homeless
Australians by
2013 or
10 per cent
reduction in
homeless
Australians by
2017.
The preferred
direction of a
benchmark would
be a decrease.
4 homes per 1,000 per annum.
Given the implementation of the
NRAS program and HSAR agenda, it
is reasonable for the positive rate
of improvement to continue into
the future.
2006 Census
(baseline)
2011 Census
2016 Census
Note: No data
likely to be
available for 2013
but next Census
will be 2016
PI 4: Proportion of
people
experiencing
repeat periods of
homelessness
25 per cent
reduction in three
repeat periods of
homelessness at a
specialist
homelessness
service in 12
months by 2013.
The preferred
direction of a
benchmark would
be a decrease.
2007–08 SAAP
data
PI 6: Proportion of
Indigenous
households owning
or purchasing a
home
10 per cent
increase in the
proportion of
Indigenous
households
owning or
purchasing a
home by 2017-18.
ABS NATSISS
2008
Future
Specialised
Homelessness
Services
Collection (SHSC)
data collection
could provide a
proxy but this
may represent
better availability
of services.
Data available
from
NATSISS/NATISH
on alternating 3yearly cycle.
The 2013 performance benchmark
is from the NPAH. It is reasonable
to have a further indicator to
reflect the next census to be
undertaken in 2016.
This 2016 benchmark is greater
than the 2013 benchmark,
recognising the additional
investment, including the $5.6b
Social Housing Initiative, since that
figure was agreed.
This benchmark is identical to the
benchmark in the National
Partnership Agreement on
Homelessness.
(SCRGSP recommends that this
benchmark should refer to the year
2013–14.)
This benchmark maintains the
trend of increased Indigenous
home ownership from 19 per cent
in 1991 to 36 per cent in 2006
(Indigenous Home Ownership
Issues Paper - FAHCSIA) (i.e., 1.1
per cent per annum).
It is consistent with commitments
to a 63 per cent increase in
Indigenous employment by 2018
The preferred
direction of a
66
benchmark would
be an increase.
(National Partnership Agreement
on Indigenous Economic
Participation).
PI 7: Proportion of
Indigenous
households living in
overcrowded
conditions
Reduce the
number of
Indigenous
households living
in overcrowded
conditions by
4,200 by 2017-18.
The preferred
direction of a
benchmark would
be a decrease.
ABS NATSISS
2008
PI 8: Proportion of
Indigenous
households living in
houses of an
acceptable
standard
Approximately
4,800 reduction in
the number of
Indigenous
households
reporting at least
one major
structural
problem by 201718. The preferred
direction of a
benchmark would
be a decrease.
ABS NATSISS
2008
Data available
from
NATSISS/NATISH
on alternating 3yearly cycle.
There may be
statistical issues
around this
benchmark
Data available
from
NATSISS/NATISH
on alternating 3yearly cycle.
This benchmark is consistent with
the NPARIH benchmark to reduce
the number of overcrowded
dwellings in remote Australia by
4,200 by 2018.
26 per cent of Indigenous
households (approximately 50,000)
reported at least one major
structural problem (NATSISS and
NATSIHS).
The NPARIH benchmark is to repair
4,800 houses by 2014 and build
4,200 new houses by 2018.
5.3 Attachment C: Equivalence Scales
Why equivalence scales are needed
Population averages are often useful measures for a variety of purposes. However, in much social
and economic policy work and performance analysis, there is a focus on those people who are less
well off in society. Those who are well off are likely to have options and choices not available to
those who are relatively less well off.
When income is used as the discriminating variable for determining those who are relatively less
67
well off, and therefore those for whom policy and performance are tracked, the choice of income
measure is critical. Gross income is one measure used for a variety of purposes, but it fails to
establish clear relativities, particularly at the household level, that should take account of taxes paid.
Disposable income addresses the income taxes paid.
However, income relativities should also reflect some measure of needs to be met from that income.
For example, a single person, on average, will require less income to have the same standard of
living as a couple with dependent children. While other aspects of life can impose differential costs
on people in different circumstances, household size is the simplest, most transparent and most
often used variable in adjusting disposable income for need, based on the size of accommodation
expenditure in most people's costs of living, and on the other economies of scale that people enjoy
when living together.
One way of adjusting (equivalising) for differences in household size might be simply to divide the
income of the household by the number of its members so that all income is presented on a per
capita basis. However, such a simple adjustment simply averages the incomes of the different
household members, assumes that all individuals have the same resource needs and that there are
no economies of scale derived from living together. The adjustment (or equivalising) of household
incomes to make them more comparable when analysis is focussed on the less well off generally
uses both the size and the composition of the household. The equivalence attempts to address the
fact that while a second occupant of the same dwelling will generally enjoy the same amenity as the
first occupant, both members enjoy the economies of scale in collectively using the building services
and associated costs of living such as in providing food etc. So rather than a per capita approach, the
needs adjusted income is calculated based on a count of 1 for the first person, and a count of less
than one for the second and subsequent persons sharing the dwelling.
Because children generally can share accommodation (eg shared bedrooms), and require less
income to support their needs, in needs adjusted income calculation they are usually counted as less
than an adult.
How are equivalised incomes calculated?
Equivalised income is devised by calculating an equivalence factor according to the chosen
equivalence scale, and then dividing income by that factor. The equivalence factor derived for the
commonly used 'modified OECD equivalence scale' is built up by allocating 1 point for the first adult
in the household, as having a weight of 1 point, adding 0.5 points for each additional person who is
15 years or older, and 0.3 points for each child under the age of 15. Equivalised household income is
derived by dividing total household income by a factor equal to the sum of the equivalence points
allocated to the household members.
When household income is adjusted according to an equivalence scale, the equivalised income can
be viewed as an indicator of the economic resources available to a standardised household. For a
68
lone person household, it is equal to household income. For a household comprising more than one
person, the equivalised income lies between the total value and the per capita value of its
unequivalised income.
An example
Household A is a couple household without children, with a disposable household income of $1,500
per week. Household B is a couple family with three dependent children aged under 15, with a
disposable household income of $2,000 per week. Comparing household incomes for the two
households without any adjustment for need would rank the household A below household B. The
comparison does not take account of the different household size and composition between the two
households. After adjustments are made for household size and composition, household B has a
relatively lower household income than the smaller household A.
Calculation of the affordability threshold (numerator)
There are two different concepts of household income that are included in the calculations for NAHA
PI 2 (Proportion of homes sold or built that are affordable by low/moderate income households).
The calculation of the income threshold relies on defining low and moderate income households (ie,
the scope of low/moderate income households) using the equivalised disposable household income
(EDHI) distribution. EDHI is the relevant income measure for determining households who are
relatively less well off since it addresses income taxes paid and the differential needs to be met from
households of differing size and composition. For example, household A with a gross household
income of $500 may be above the threshold and household B with a gross household income of
$600 may be below the threshold if household B has 2 adults (EDHI of $400) and household A has
one person (EDHI of $500).
However, in assessing home purchase affordability it is the gross household income that is the
appropriate measure, with homes assessed to be affordable when the household spends no more
than 30% of their gross household income on mortgage payments (including both capital and
interest repayments). Therefore, from the above example, household B is included in the
low/moderate income population for the numerator, with the gross household income of $600 used
in the assessment of affordability for the numerator.
So the gross household income thresholds do not reflect the distribution of gross household income
from all the households surveyed and therefore will not move like actual income movements at a
particular point in the gross household income distribution. Rather the thresholds will reflect the
gross household incomes of households at those points in the EDHI distribution, and this will change
over time depending on the types of households represented at those points in any given year,
which is also significantly affected by the changing shape of the income distribution at different
points along the distribution.
69
6. Sources
8731.0 - Building Approvals, Australia, Australian Bureau of Statistics April 2012.
Heads of Treasuries, Report of the Review of National Agreements, National Partnerships
and Implementation Plans under the Intergovernmental Agreement on Federal Financial
Relations, December 2010, unpublished.
Housing assistance in Australia 2011, Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, June 2011.
Intergovernmental Agreement on Federal Financial Relations, Council of Australian
Governments,
http://www.coag.gov.au/intergov_agreements/federal_financial_relations/index.cfm
Measuring Australia’s Progress, Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2010.
National Affordable Housing Agreement: Performance report for 2009–10, COAG Reform
Council.
National Affordable Housing Agreement: Baseline performance report for 2008–09, COAG
Reform Council.
National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Survey, Australian Bureau of Statistics,
2008.
70
7. Glossary of Terms
ABS
AIHW
COAG
CRA
CRC
DHS
EDHI
FaHCSIA
GSS
HoTs Review
IGA
NAHA
NPAH
NPARIH
NPASH
NATSIHS
NATSISS
NHSC
NRDAP
SAAP
SHS
SCRGSP
SHSC
SHI
SIH
SOMIH
Australian Bureau of Statistics
Australian Institute of Health and Welfare
Council of Australian Governments
Commonwealth Rent Assistance
COAG Reform Council
Department of Human Services
Equivalised Disposable Household Income
Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs
General Social Survey
Heads of Treasuries Review
Intergovernmental Agreement on Federal Financial Relations
National Affordable Housing Agreement
National Partnership Agreement on Homelessness
National Partnership on Remote Indigenous Housing
National Partnership Agreement on Social Housing
National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Health Survey
National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Survey
National Housing Supply Council
National Report on Development Assistance Performance
Supported Accommodation Assistance Program
Specialist Homelessness Services
Steering Committee for the Review of Government Service Provision
Specialist Homelessness Services Collection
Social Housing Initiative
Survey on Income and Housing
State-Owned and Managed Indigenous Housing
71