IncreasingAffordableHousingforFamilyViolenceSurvivorsinFishermansBend

Above:LorimerPrecinctconceptsketch,source:DELWP2016. PaulWebb

1.0 Executive Summary 3

2.0 Key Concepts 5

3.0 Proposal: Housing Cooperatives for Women and Children in Fishermans Bend 7

3.1 Family Violence & Housing 8 4.0 Housing Cooperatives 10

4.1 The Canadian Example 11 4.2 Gipps Street, Abbotsford, Melbourne 12 4.3 Iroko, South Bank, London 14

5.0 Site Context 15 5.1 Montague Precinct 17 5.2 Safety Hubs 19

6.0 Costing 20 6.1 Further Options 22 6.2 Partners 23

7.0 Recommendations 24 7.1 Looking Further Ahead 26

8.0 References 27 Iroko Cooperative Housing, South Bank, London (Haworth Tompkins, 2014))

Contents

1.0ExecutiveSummary

“We slept in the car, it had to be near enough to the children’s school that they could walk, as I didn’t have enough money for petrol to drive them to school every day. The car couldn’t be too close to school as there was a chance that their school friends might see our living conditions. We selected a park that had a toilet facility that we could wash up in before the kids went to school…”

‘Susan’s story, as told to the Royal Commission into Family Violence (State of Victoria, 2016, p. 226)

Family violence has been estimated to cost the Australian economy $13.6 billion annually, while the recently published Report and Recommendations (2016) by the Victorian Royal Commission into Family Violence stresses the need for safe and affordable housing as the first pillar of recovery for women and children who have experienced family violence. Furthermore, The Royal Commission identified that a third of all people accessing homelessness services in Victoria did so as a result of violence in the home and this figure is increasing at 9 percent annually (Commonwealth of Australia, 2015; State of Victoria, 2016c) The Fishermans Bend Urban Renewal precinct, as Australia’s largest urban renewal precinct, offers a unique opportunity to provide affordable housing for women and children from the start of this project and as each of the precincts and communities grow in the renewal area. As it stands, if no interventions are in place and development is left to the market (as is the case in the nearby Docklands), then 99 percent of very low and low income earners will be unable to rent or purchase in Fishermans Bend (Stubbs, 2013).

The City of Melbourne (2013) also notes that in the central city area the current supply of three or more bedroom apartments, which would be required to appropriately house some family types, is only available to those on very high incomes. Women’s Housing Limited (2012) consulted a number of agencies working in the Family Violence sector finding that women and children in single and small families found it difficult to secure long-term housing, particularly within a 20-kilometre radius of Melbourne’s Central Business District. Furthermore, this research conducted by Women’s Housing Limited found that survivors of family violence were best suited to medium-density housing as having neighbours nearby provided a sense of security. Clearly to build diverse, family-friendly and welcoming communities in Fishermans Bend, some interventions and mechanisms are required. To add to an aspirational 20 percent affordable housing target in Fishermans Bend (8,000 homes) this paper proposes the creation of well-located housing in each of the four residential precincts of Fishermans Bend for women and children survivors of family violence, using a housing cooperative model. Not only will this provide affordable, appropriate and secure housing for women and

3

Above: Fishermans Bend Urban Renewal Area concept sketch (State of Victoria, 2016a)

children most in need, it will embed this model from early on in the development in Fishermans Bend and add diversity to the housing, uses and communities in Fishermans Bend.

4

2.0KeyConcepts

Affordable housing refers to housing outside the main housing market which is subsidised below the market rate and provided to specified eligible low and moderate income households. This can include public, social and transitional housing (City of Melbourne, 2014; Victorian Council of Social Services, 2014). Appropriate housing refers to the suitability of a dwelling to meet the household’s needs, such as dwelling condition, children over 10 having their own bedroom, accessibility, location and tenure for a reasonable period (Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, 2013). The City of Melbourne’s Future Living discussion paper (2013) notes the predominance of one- and two-bedroom apartments (92 percent of new apartments constructed in the City of Melbourne since 2006 contain only one or two bedrooms), a lack of schools and a reduction in apartment sizes all contributing to a lack of housing diversity and family friendly housing. Elsewhere the Future Living paper notes “the physical aspects of housing are more directly related to poor physical health outcomes while overcrowding and unstable housing, such as insecure tenure and housing stress, affects mental health and wellbeing” (Mallett et al. 2011, p. 31). The City of Melbourne makes particular note that there is a “demand for family-friendly apartments in the City of Melbourne” (p. 53). Social Housing is either managed by the State, or increasingly by community housing providers. As a proportion of total housing stock in Victoria, social housing stock is low (less than 5 percent) when compared with similar countries. This can be attributed to previous

sales to tenants, reductions in funding by governments, population increases, deinstitutionalisation, cost pressures, and a general housing affordability crisis (Victoria State Government, 2011; Gilmour & Milligan, 2012; Victorian Council of Social Services, 2014). For the purpose of this paper, social housing refers to below-market rental housing for people on low incomes and those with special needs (Yates, 2103). Family Violence, as referred to in the Victorian Royal Commission into Family Violence and defined in Section 5 of the Family Violence Protection Act 2008 (Vic) is: . (a) behaviour by a person towards a family member of that person if that behaviour—

. (ii) is physically or sexually abusive; or �

. (iii) is emotionally or psychologically abusive; or �

. (iv) is economically abusive; or �

. (v) is threatening; or �

. (vi) is coercive; or �

. (vii) in any other way controls or dominates the family member and causes that family member to feel fear for the safety or

5

wellbeing of that family member or another person; or �

. (b) behaviour by a person that causes a child to hear or witness, or otherwise be exposed to the effects of, behaviour referred to in paragraph (a).

Furthermore, the Royal Commission notes, “The most common manifestation of family violence is intimate partner violence committed by men against their current or former female partners. This violence can also affect children. It is the form of family violence that we know most about, and it is the key focus of most services and programs” (State of Victoria, 2016c, p. 2). This proposal notes the gendered nature of Family Violence and the response, as noted in the Royal Commission, to support women and children survivors of family violence.

Family violence is a significant driver of homelessness in Australia, and it should be noted that many women and children do not seek refuge away from the family home due to the lack of safe, affordable housing,

putting them at further risk of experiencing violence in the home (Commonwealth of Australia, 2015). The World Health Organisation (2013) notes that family violence is a global health problem, with one in three women experiencing violence in the home in their life time. The Victorian Royal Commission into Family Violence involved 13 months of community consultations, public hearings, private interviews, literature reviews and written submissions. Released in March 2016, the Commission’s Summary and Recommendations includes 227 recommendations, all of which Victorian Premier Daniel Andrews has pledged to act on. (McKenzie-Murray, 2016).

6

3.0Proposal

This proposal seeks not only to increase the proportion of affordable housing in Fishermans Bend in order to reach the aspirational level of 20 percent affordable housing, but also to increase the amount of affordable housing for women and children survivors of family violence.

This proposal calls upon a number of stakeholders to develop and manage housing cooperatives in each of the four residential precincts of Fishermans Bend. This will commence in the Montague precinct, as this precinct is closest to existing housing, jobs, transport and services. At a scale comparable to the Gipps Street development in Melbourne’s inner northern Abbotsford (refer to p. 12), this proposal at a minimum could provide 25 affordable long-term rental apartments in each precinct, totalling at least 100 affordable homes for women and children through the life of the project. These homes would be made available to those women on various income levels and would be assessed and supported by appropriate services located in the ‘safety hubs’ (refer to p. 19). As is the case with other social housing, applicants would be assessed on income and asset eligibility criteria1 (State of Victoria, 2016c). Stubbs (2013) notes that in Fishermans Bend, all very-low- and low-income renters and purchasers will be excluded from the

1 It is noted that some women, may have difficulty in accessing assistance due to family composition, combined incomes, or the partner may be controlling resources which can act as a block to accessing money for such things as private rental. This is why specialist Family Violence services located in the ‘safety hubs’ will conduct

private rental and purchasing markets, and many women may not be eligible for housing assistance due to combined assets with their former partners, indicating that interventions such as these are crucial in maintaining housing affordability in Fishermans Bend (Daoud et al. 2015). A mixture of income levels will assist in maintaining the cooperative through revenue and also acknowledges that income level of women escaping violence in the home may change, especially once re-established away from the family home and the violence that can disrupt earning capacity or access to income.

assessments and provide appropriate support, as outlined in the Royal Commission’s Summary and Recommendations.

Gipps Street, Abbotsford (CEHL, 2013)

7

3.1FamilyViolenceandHousing

“The first pillar of recovery is housing. Safe and affordable housing is central to stabilising a victim’s life. Without the certainty of knowing where they will live, a victim cannot plan for the future: if they are not returning home, they need to know where their children will go to school, how they themselves will get to work, or even where they might seek work. With stable accommodation they can turn their mind to rebuilding their own and their children’s lives and (re)connecting with the community.”

(Victorian Royal Commission into Family Violence, Summary and Recommendations, State of Victoria, 2016c, p. 29.)

Women who, quite literally, have to flee violence in the home are often not only at risk of homelessness or inappropriate housing, but will often have to move to new areas away from friends and family members, where community supports have not been established. This can lead to isolation, further emotional trauma and severe economic disadvantage, and further exacerbating existing health concerns of women who have experienced family violence (Daoud et al. 2015). Similarly, children and young people will also be disadvantaged through this process, often having to attend a different school(s) and losing social supports; data from service providers found some 66 percent of young people attending homelessness services were doing so with their mothers escaping family violence (Southwell, 2002; Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, 2005). Furthermore, sole parents as a demographic group are overrepresented in homelessness services and statistics, which can be attributed in part to the outcome of family violence in the home (Wood et al. 2015).

2 It is noted that a mixture of housing tenures and types will be required for housing women and children survivors of family violence appropriately, and ‘one size does not fit all.’ This proposal provides long-term, secure, rental accommodation.

The provision of long-term affordable housing in this proposal is provided for women and children who have experienced family violence in the home, and are no longer able to live in the family home2. While it is often preferable for women and children to live in the family home (‘Safe at Home’ programs to support women to stay in the family home were the focus of funding in the recent Victorian State Budget 2016/17), where there are connections to the home and community, this may not always be possible with regards to safety. Likewise, it may be preferable for the partner who is using violence to be housed elsewhere, but again this may not always be possible3 (Southwell, 2002). As the Royal Commission into Family Violence notes in its Summary and Recommendations (2016c), social housing in Victoria is essential for those escaping violence in the home and is a major destination from transitional housing; it therefore needs to be strengthened as a response to family violence. In the past year it has been reported that more than 1,100 people (mostly women) escaping violence in the home

3 The provision of housing for those who use violence in the home is beyond the scope of this proposal and would require other specialised services and interventions.

8

have been turned away from homelessness services (Tomazin, 2016). Jenny Smith, chief executive of the Council to Homeless Persons, while noting that family violence is the biggest driver of homelessness in Victoria, states, “If the Government is serious about alleviating homelessness then an adequate supply of social housing must be provided and maintained by Governments. Social housing is clearly the best housing option for women escaping domestic and family violence, providing safe, secure and guaranteed affordable housing. Both public and community housing options are needed, as these options suit different groups of women, and provide additional housing options for women” (Tomazin, 2016). Long wait times for long-term public or social housing when moving from transitional housing mean that women are unable to fully participate in community life, not knowing where they may be living, resulting in disruption to work, children’s schooling and other activities (State of Victoria, 2016c).

9

4.0HousingCooperatives

The Ministerial Advisory Committee for the Plan Melbourne Refresh notes that there needs to be a stronger focus on the provision of social and affordable housing, particularly when it comes to supply (State of Victoria, 2015). Housing cooperatives are one such way that social and affordable housing can be delivered and have already been established in Melbourne, nationally and overseas. Cooperatives are governed by voluntary tenant members with support from professional staff.

The key principles of living in a cooperative include:

• The tenant must be willing and able to participate in the running of the cooperative, and is focused on fair and equal access to those who wish to participate which includes encouraging the occupancy, participation, and full social integration of people with special needs

• Cooperative housing is run democratically where all members have equal voting rights, and membership is distributed in a manner that encourages equal participation

• Members contribute fairly to the running of the housing

• Housing cooperatives are independent entities controlled by their members

• Housing cooperatives should support the further education of their members to help meet their responsibilities and deepen their commitment to the performance of the cooperative

• Rental is dependent on income; tenants in housing cooperatives are usually charged social housing rents

(Community Housing Federation of Victoria, 2016; Australian Government Council on Federal Financial Relations, 2016)

Housing cooperatives are a sustainable way of providing affordable housing, offering some benefits that other housing does not necessarily provide, notably: • Higher levels of satisfaction and pride, resulting in a more efficient

model with less turnover, less conflict, fewer property costs

• Well-managed and regulated

• Well-resourced with resident support services, where required

• Greater sense of ownership, care of buildings, local environment and neighbours

• Opportunity for teamwork, participation

• Pathway to skills, education and employment

• Non-stigmatised housing

10

• Integrated into local communities

• Well designed, efficiently and innovatively developed

• People are connected and engaged locally

• Good community role models with problem-solving skills

• Includes encouraging the occupancy, participation, and full social integration of people with special needs

• Funding can come from a mixture of sources, including external grants, loans or philanthropic sources

(Community Housing Federation of Victoria, 2016; VCOSS, 2016; Australian Government Council on Financial Relations, 2016)

The community housing sector and housing cooperatives within the sector have grown in Victoria over the past three decades with government investment, stock transfers and borrowings spurring this growth. The Victorian Council of Social Services notes community housing’s high rates of tenant satisfaction, while as it is managed by community housing providers, is held in perpetuity (VCOSS, 2014; Stubbs, 2013). Australia’s (State and Federal) Housing Ministers have agreed to expand the level of community housing, in order to encourage further growth in the community housing sector and housing cooperatives. Reasons for this include the current public housing delivery model is seen as unsustainable due to funding constraints, unfunded maintenance liabilities in existing stock and the concentration of disadvantage in existing social housing (VCOSS, 2014; Nash, 2015).

4.1TheCanadianExperience A UNESCO (2007) report found that in Canada cooperative housing “…encourages participation by members in supporting social justice for the benefit of all Canadians. Volunteer-managed Canadian housing cooperatives are proud of their successful 27-year record of sound and cost-effective management, self-governance, sustained and positive partnerships between the public and private sectors, and participation in broader social issues. In so doing, housing cooperatives in Canada have been evaluated as the most cost-effective means by which governments can provide affordable housing in Canada, noting that volunteer participation levels and the resources required are at a lower cost than other models (UNESCO, 2007).

As cooperatives empower their members through training, involvement in decision making, full inclusion and integration into communities, this model is well-suited and important for survivors of family violence to experience as a means of empowerment regarding their home and community.

11

12 4.2GippsStreet,Abbotsford,MelbourneA nearby example of a housing cooperative, developed by Common Equity Housing Limited (CEHL) is in Gipps Street, Abbotsford. The site chosen was a former industrial site (boot factory), close to transport and the Melbourne’s Central Business District. As such, the site is similar to sites that can be found in the Fishermans Bend Urban Renewal Precinct, particularly in the Montague precinct (refer to p. 17).

Details of the project are as follows:

• 59 apartments • Common Equity Housing Limited manages 25 apartments • 34 apartments purchased by private buyers

• Private balconies • Shared internal courtyards • 6 apartments purchased by disability service providers • Completed April 2013

• Total cost $30 million • Funded jointly by Common Equity Housing Limited, Victorian

Department of Human Services and Commonwealth Government (National Rental Affordability Scheme)

(CEHL, 2013)

Central to this project being delivered was the capital raised by the private sale of 34 apartments, which is attractive to potential investors and agencies, while also adding to the social mix of the project.

The additional sale of six apartments to disability agencies, including the Transport Accident Commission and the Summer Foundation, illustrates how such a project can provide high-quality and appropriate housing for people with disabilities, as other similar projects could also produce housing to fit the specific needs of particular groups, such as women and children survivors of family violence. Housing for six people living with a disability together in the one project has meant a support worker has been able to be co-located on a full-time (24 hours, seven days a week) basis, and as these apartments are ‘peppered’ throughout the development, there has been better integration with the other residents and mainstream society (Victorian Council of Social Services, 2014; Summer Foundation, 2015).

Above: Gipps Street, Abbotsford (CEHL, 2013)

13 The shared courtyards have fostered community integration among residents and the development was awarded the Best Affordable Development (2013) award by the Urban Development Institute of Australia (CEHL, 2016). While this development does not necessarily cater for women and children survivors of family violence, it illustrates a successful inner-city housing cooperative, with a mix of housing tenures, while providing affordable and appropriate housing for a group with particular needs.

Iroko, is a high-density, human scale, energy-saving housing cooperative project constructed in 2004 on the South Bank of the Thames in London, at a cost of £14.5 million (AU$29 million) for key workers and their families. The mix of private garden and communal spaces is attractive to families, where parents can watch their children at play, while also providing opportunities for social interaction (Hemingway, 2002; Rose, 2007; Haworth Tomkins, 2014).

4.3Iroko,SouthBank,London

Above: Courtyard, Gipps Street, Abbotsford (CEHL, 2013)

Above: Iroko (foreground) shared communal space (Haworth Tompkins, 2014)

14 The development comprises of:

• 59 homes in total • 32 five-bedroom houses • 6 three-bedroom houses • 21 one- and two-bedroom apartments • basement level car parking for 200 • two corner shops • all homes have private gardens • communal spaces

(Hemingway, 2002; Haworth Tomkins, 2014; Coin Street Community Builders, 2016).

Iroko has taken a number of awards including the Design for Homes Housing Design Project/Regeneration Award (2001), Design for Homes Housing Design Completed Project Award (2002), ROOM National Partnership Awards (2002), Blueprint Architecture Awards 2002 – Best Residential Building and the Royal Institute of British Architects Award (2002) (Coin Street Community Builders, 2016).

The City of Melbourne’s Future Living discussion paper on housing (2013) notes Iroko cooperative as an example of how a such a project can provide collective ownership to tenants, remain long-term assets and demonstrate how a local government can partner with a cooperative in the provision of affordable housing.

Above and below: Iroko Housing, South Bank, London (Haworth Tomkins, 2014)

5.0SiteContext

The Fishermans Bend Strategic Framework Plan envisages Fishermans Bend as “…a place for all people and ages through the creation of diverse, liveable and family friendly communities”. The Vision also states that “housing choice” and “community facilities that are accessible” are also desirable (Metropolitan Planning Authority, 2014, p. 10). Places Victoria has made it known that affordable housing will be a critical component of the Fishermans Bend Urban Renewal development, while the Ministerial Advisory Committee for Fishermans Bend notes its potential to increase the supply of affordable housing in Melbourne’s inner city, assisted by affordability initiatives (Stubbs, 2013; Fishermans Bend Advisory Committee, 2015). While providing opportunities to contain population growth within urban boundaries and making use of well-placed under-utilised sites, urban renewal projects in Australia can also bring together housing, planning and social infrastructure and investment (Parson, 1982; McGovern, 2006 cited in Davidson et al. 2012).

Such a proposal is attractive in Fishermans Bend as it:

• Is an opportunity to invest the money specifically allocated in the Victorian Budget for housing family violence survivors

• Can be undertaken relatively quickly; money will be saved by the government if sites are chosen, purchased and set aside by government for this proposal and other critical social infrastructure

• The size of Fishermans Bend allows for such a major project to be undertaken, and possible expansion of this proposal

• No established communities will mean a reduction in potential third-party appeals and opposition

• A mix of tenures and housing sizes are required, which is possible given the scale and size of the renewal area

• Similar to the Gipps Street development, there are a number of former industrial sites that may be able to be repurposed for a housing cooperative

• Is well-located, close to employment and services in the CBD and inner-city Melbourne

15

• The ‘safety hub’ model as outlined in the Royal Commission’s recommendations fits well with this proposal (refer to p. 19)

• This project will mean women and children are an integral and founding part of the communities that will form in Fishermans Bend, adding to the social mix, which the Ministerial Advisory Committee (2015) notes is essential in creating diverse communities

Further to this, housing in Fishermans Bend can make use of increased densities, through mixed-use developments where social infrastructure (which is required as it currently does not exist) can be developed alongside housing. Some housing could be built above services, reducing the costs to government in purchasing land for housing, enabling “…the best and most efficient use of land and infrastructure”, as the Metropolitan Planning Authority (2014, p. 13) seeks to achieve. The Metropolitan Planning Authority also makes particular mention of Registered Housing Associations being able to deliver and add to affordable housing in Fishermans Bend, and their growth will be “strongly encouraged” (p. 13). Women’s Housing Limited in its submission to the Royal Commission (2015) makes particular note that not only housing is required for women who have experienced family violence to rebuild their lives, but support services, education and employment are also required alongside, so that women can fully participate both socially and economically.

16

5.1MontaguePrecinct The Fishermans Bend Urban Renewal Precinct is made up of the four original precincts of Montague, Lorimer, Wirraway and Sandridge. With the addition of the Fishermans Bend Employment Precinct in 2015, the total area of the Fishermans Bend Urban Renewal Area is 455 hectares (Fishermans Bend Advisory Committee, 2015). The draft vision for Fishermans Bend in 2014 called for these precincts to be “a vibrant mix of communities”, with “distinctive and diverse neighbourhoods” that are also “a great place for families” (Fishermans Bend Advisory Committee, 2015, p.10).

The Montague Precinct is closest to the Central Business District and existing services, including public transport. The Montague Precinct Structure Plan developed by the City of Port Phillip in 2012 set a target of least 20 percent of new houses being ‘affordable’, with Montague playing a role in providing well-located social housing, including housing for families. The City of Port Phillip’s Montague Precinct Structure Plan desires:

• Blending of Montague’s existing industrial heritage

• A lively, inclusive and diverse new community

• Amenity and social benefits for both residents and workers

• A thriving community heart and community hub, that provides a place to meet, socialise, work and study

• Community infrastructure, facilities and services required by the new community are planned for and provided early

• A centrally-located community ‘hub’ and local activity centre will be the focus for the new Montague community

(City of Port Phillip, 2012)

With the creation of the Fishermans Bend Urban Renewal Precinct, given its location, Montague has still been the focus of early development and planning for the establishment of early community infrastructure. In February of 2016 designs were announced for the ‘vertical school’ on Ferrars Street, in the Montague Precinct of

Above: Fishermans Bend Urban Renewal Area precincts, and proximity to Melbourne CBD (State of Victoria, 2016a)

17

Fishermans Bend, that is due to be completed in 2018 (Premier of Victoria, 2016b). Funding has also been allocated in the recent Victorian State Budget (2016/17) for the purchase of land along Buckhurst Street (South Melbourne) nearby, to provide open space within the Montague Precinct (State of Victoria, 2016b). The Fishermans Bend Recast Vision (2016) makes particular note of the school and community hub being a focus for the local community. A number of heritage sites could be used in Montague for medium-density housing (similar to the Gipps Street development), which is also in keeping with the Fishermans Bend Ministerial Advisory Committee’s Recommendation 10 regarding the protection of heritage, and the Fishermans Bend Strategic Framework’s (2014) acknowledgement of the need to protect Fishermans Bend’s former industrial development. The Advisory Committee (2015) also notes and recommends the use and development of catalyst projects in Fishermans Bend, as a way of attracting key housing market investment through the provision of social infrastructure, and “supporting the creation of a family friendly community” (p. 38). The Montague precinct could ideally see this take place, due to its location within the Fishermans Bend Urban Renewal Area, location to nearby services, good transport links and early commitments to social infrastructure by the State Government.

Vertical school concept in Montage precinct, Premier of Victoria (2016b)

18

5.2SafetyHubs The Royal Commission into Family Violence in its Report and Recommendations recommends the establishment of ‘safety hubs’ (Recommendations 35-40, State of Victoria (2016c), pp. 284-286), which will house specialist integrated assessment teams with expertise in family violence, family and children’s services, and perpetrator assessment. These ‘safety hubs’ will include:

• An appointed advanced family violence practitioner to provide practice leadership and secondary consultation

• A capacity to activate an after-hours face-to-face crisis response where required

• The provision of secondary consultation by other specialist organisations, including Aboriginal-community-controlled organisations, to the intake team

(State of Victoria, 2016c) The safety hubs should be in accessible and safe locations, while noting that women and children survivors of family violence “require policies and interventions that tackle both housing and other social

determinates of health such as income, employment, education and social support” (State of Victoria, 2016c; Daoud et al. 2015, p. 24). The creation of the community infrastructure already planned for the Montague precinct is an ideal location for one of the ‘safety hubs’ that will be located in each of the Health and Human Services areas of the State. In establishing the ‘safety hubs,’ the Victorian Government will provide funding for the co-design of the hubs with local providers, ensuring that appropriate infrastructure, including technology, is taken into consideration (State of Victoria, 2016c). The need for comprehensive planning of any urban renewal area, and particularly for an urban renewal area of this size and scale, is fundamental and can set out the infrastructure needs, such as open space, transport and roads and community facilities (Fensham, 2016). This comprehensive planning can support the infrastructure required for the provision of affordable housing for women and children, their particular needs, and any additional infrastructure that may be required through the creation of a safety hubs within the Fishermans Bend Urban Renewal precinct. Partnerships could not only involve the public and private sectors, but also fundamentally include women and children in the decision-making process, as it is their needs that must be responded to.

19

6.0Costing

The housing of women and children survivors of family violence is going to require an ongoing, sustained and significant funding stream, which goes well beyond affordable housing in Fishermans Bend alone. To fund the recommendations of the Royal Commission into Family Violence with regards to housing, services, supports and other infrastructure that will be required there will be a need for access to ongoing funding. This will require new revenue streams for the Government, and various options will need to be considered. Since the release of the Royal Commission’s Report and Recommendations, there have been a number of ways of increasing funding mooted, including a ‘Family Violence levy’ to pay for the recommendations (which has since been ruled out by the Premier, Daniel Andrews) and a tax on landowners of vacant properties (as occurs in parts of Canada and Britain), potentially generating $79 million per year and assisting in the creation of affordable housing for family violence survivors (Keenan, 2016; Tomazin, 2016).

The May 2016 Victorian Budget allocated $572 million in funding as a means of starting to address the Royal Commission’s 227 Recommendations. Of this $572 million, $152 million has been allocated to the ‘housing blitz’ as outlined in the Royal Commission’s recommendations, and will be directed to crisis and refuge accommodation as well as rental assistance for those who are able to

4 Based on average 2.3 percent inflation over five years, refer to: http://www.rba.gov.au/calculator/annualDecimal.html

access the private rental market (State of Victoria, 2016b). The $152 million for social housing will go towards 130 new social housing properties, and, as such, funding could be used for a proposal such as this, to develop the housing that will be required (Premier of Victoria, 2016a).

Gipps Street, Abbottsford can be used as an example, given its similarities to this proposal in Fishermans Bend; similar former industrial sites exist in Fishermans Bend, on a similar scale and close to the CBD. To develop Gipps Street, $8.23 million (approximately $9.22 million today4) was contributed by the Victorian Government, while the majority share was met by Common Equity Housing Limited, with the remainder coming from the Commonwealth Government through the (now cancelled) National Rental Affordability Scheme (CEHL, 2010). In all, an investment of $30 million would be required to establish the first housing cooperative in Montague, with others to follow, of similar size (and cost, depending on location as Montague will be more expensive in terms of land value).

20

The sale of 60 percent of the apartments in a cooperative housing development, as occurred in the Gipps Street development: • will allow the costs for the cooperative housing to be offset

• is attractive to investors with regards to risk and return

• is a non-stigmatising housing choice for women and children

• tenure blind adds to the diversity of residents and social integration

• offers greater opportunities to expand the model further if proven, as has been the case elsewhere

Along with investment by government and housing associations, the National Affordability Housing Roundtable (2014) found that costs may also be met or reduced by: • Properties being developed and owned by not-for-profit entities,

as outlined above, that will forgo the traditional developers’ margin and also bring the benefits of scale development, innovative designs, delivery expertise and increases in the shared usage of many facilities

• The owning entity will be willing to offer long-term leases to the operating entity on a cost recovery rather than a profit-driven basis

• The housing cooperative will sell shares to individuals wanting to live in the complex based on the price set by the owning entity; initial entry costs for a new dwelling can be reduced by 20% to 25% of costs of standard comparable single dwelling purchases

• The costs could be reduced even further if land is available below market value through land trust or philanthropic mechanisms (or already owned by government, as noted)

Further to this, allowing housing to be made available to women and children in differing income brackets enables not only a greater mix of residents, but also offsets some of the ongoing costs through rental incomes, adding to the sustainability of such a development. Rental assistance through the recently announced Family Violence Housing Taskforce funding and ongoing Commonwealth Rental Assistance can also add to ongoing income. Allowing a range of incomes by residents of the cooperative acknowledges that employment and income may change over time for residents, so that residents can remain in their housing, even if income levels do change. The Family Violence Housing Taskforce would need to be involved in the formation of a working group to guide the allocation of affordable rental properties in Fishermans Bend, in consultation with family violence and housing service providers.

21

6.1Furtheroptions As Breen (2015) notes, “In order to have wider impacts on housing affordability cities need a range of initiatives that support the delivery of housing” (p. 30), and that multiple tools are required. Planning mechanisms on their own will not deliver the amount of affordable housing required in urban renewal sites, such as Fishermans Bend, additionally the use of government land and/or government funding is also going to be required (Davidson et al. 2012). Clearly one mechanism or proposal is not going to solve affordable housing in Fishermans Bend or elsewhere; this particular proposal draws upon government funding that may not always be there, depending on budgetary constraints and the priorities of the sitting government(s). The mechanisms outlined below, used elsewhere in Australia and overseas, can be implemented with little or no cost to government (Stubbs, 2013). The use of density bonuses can be used to fund infrastructure, notably affordable housing, in an area such as Fishermans Bend). Density bonuses are used widely in other cities around the world, and not only can they be used to deliver affordable housing, but also other public benefits such as parks, plazas and other open spaces, community facilities such as childcare, cinemas or other arts and cultural spaces (Hodyl, 2014; Fishermans Bend Advisory Committee, 2015). The use of inclusionary zoning, where a proportion of new developments (to be determined) may go towards the provision of affordable housing may also contribute to a proposal such as this. The Royal Commission’s Report and Recommendations (2016) also makes

note that inclusionary zoning may be one mechanism to increasing funding and social housing stock for women and children leaving violence in the home, and the State Government is looking at trialling such a mechanism on land it has sold to private developers. Although small, inclusionary zoning has been trialled in other urban renewal areas, such as Green Square in New South Wales (City of Melbourne, 2013; Fishermans Bend Advisory Committee, 2015). The reduction of regulatory barriers, such as third-party appeals or car-parking requirements (as suggested in the Plan Melbourne Refresh Discussion Paper, 2015) may allow such a proposal to be more attractive to potential investors while also expediting the process and providing essential housing and services sooner. Changes to regulations and policy settings with regards to housing cooperatives may be one way to provide incentives for investment and allow housing cooperatives to expand (Australian Government Council on Federal Financial Relations, 2016). Social housing bonds are another way in which financing can be made available, and can “…bring together capital and expertise from the public, private and not-for-profit sectors to deliver better outcomes for the community” (Australian Government Council on Federal Financial Relations, 2016, p. 13). The Victorian Government has set aside $700,000 in the recent budget to explore a scheme to possibly introduce a social bonds scheme to raise investment, as other jurisdictions in Australia have, and which could be used for projects (once proven) such as this or other projects related to responding to family violence (VCOSS, 2015; Preiss, 2016).

22

6.2Partners There are eight registered housing associations in Victoria, both Wintringham and Port Phillip Housing Association manage housing projects nearby, so may be well suited to this proposal (Victorian State Government, 2016). Similarly, Common Equity Housing Limited, as Victoria’s largest owner of housing among Victoria’s Housing Associations (with 2,200 properties under their management) while also involved in the development and management of Gipps Street (as a successful similar development) would be suited to this proposal, along with Women’s Housing Limited, having the experience and expertise in delivering affordable housing to women and children in Victoria (many of whom are escaping violence in the family home) (CEHL 2015; Women’s Housing Limited, 2015). Along with housing associations, philanthropic funds, developers and service delivery agencies could all play a role in this proposal, overseen by the Family Violence Housing Taskforce. As Fiona McCormack, the CEO of Domestic Violence Victoria writing in The Guardian notes, funding would enable “…space and opportunities for innovative practice, workforce development and creative partnerships with other agencies outside the sector”, which this proposal seeks to achieve in Fishermans Bend.

23

Above: Gipps Street, Abbotsford (CEHL, 2013)

7.0Recommendations

1. Family Violence Housing Taskforce oversee development

The Ministerial Advisory Committee Report (2015) for Plan Melbourne suggests a broad strategy to tackle housing affordability through a Housing Strategy that includes a Housing Plan for Melbourne, while Places Victoria, overseeing development in Fishermans Bend, can also be involved in the provision of affordable housing (State of Victoria, 2015; Women’s Housing Limited, 2015). The establishment of a Family Violence Housing Taskforce provides an opportunity to bring these government stakeholders (as well as others) together to plan and develop this proposal. Furthermore, the Taskforce will have the specialist knowledge with regards to Family Violence and can include women and children as an integral part of the planning process and delivery.

2. Initial funding from the State Government for construction of housing

The funding that has already been announced in the recent budget, particularly the $152 million for social housing, will be required to initially fund the first development in Montague, along with investment from a housing association and possible philanthropic and in-kind developer contributions. Based on today’s costs and using Gipps Street as an example, a $10 million contribution from State Government could allow for this proposal to commence (not taking into consideration other services and infrastructure that will also be

required, and which have already started to attract funding from the State Government in Montague, as previously noted). Again, the Family Violence Housing Taskforce will be able to co-ordinate the initial stages of this proposal, particularly when related to the role of government and government funding.

3. Integrated precinct planning and early purchase of land

As there is little existing government-owned land in Fishermans Bend, the time is now to plan for the future infrastructure needs for each of the precincts, which including affordable housing. Government should act now to purchase land for these services, rather than waiting until a later date when land is likely to be more expensive (as occurred when Fishermans Bend was initially zoned ‘Capital City’ in 2012) (Fishermans Bend Advisory Committee, 2015). The precincts are noted in the Fishermans Bend Recast Vision (2016), and on this basis planning now for each precinct in various stages should include the provision of infrastructure, early land purchase for this infrastructure, and setting out potential sites (including housing above other community services and infrastructure) for housing for women and children survivors of family violence. In so doing, this can potentially reduce costs by purchasing land now, but also embed this proposal in the development of Fishermans Bend.

24

4. Housing transferred to a housing association

Once a development is completed it can be transferred to an experienced and registered housing association to oversee the management as a cooperative, as noted previously.

5. Cost offsets through sales to private buyers in developments and rental mix

In each of the developments, there will be a mix of tenures and types, adding to the housing and social mix. Sale of a proportion of apartments to private buyers will offset costs, as in the example of Gipps Street, which has a 40/60 percent mix of social/private dwellings. Of the social housing, this too can be a mix of income types, which can further add to the development’s ongoing financial viability through rental revenue.

6. Ongoing rental subsidy packages for women and children in Fishermans Bend to access the private rental

market, where possible

As these developments are completed and other nearby rental accommodation is constructed and becomes available, ongoing rental subsidies announced by the State Government for women and children family violence survivors, along with the Commonwealth Rental Assistance, could be used for nearby private rental accommodation.

While not a part of these developments, and not necessarily ‘affordable housing’ (as defined in the introduction), rental assistance may allow private rental accommodation to be affordable for some women, thus allowing women and children to be close to the services and communities that will be established in Fishermans Bend.

7. Cooperatives in each of the four neighbourhood precincts = 100 affordable apartments

Cooperative housing on the scale of Gipps Street could be constructed in each of the four neighbourhood precincts over time (as each of the precincts develop, as set out in the Fishermans Bend Recast Vision, 2016). The obvious choice would be to commence in the Montague precinct, as previously outlined. This would mean at a minimum 100 affordable rental apartments for women and children would be created; however, if successful, there is scope for more developments of this type in Fishermans Bend, given its size and plans for growth.

8. Changes to existing regulation regarding financing of housing projects by community housing cooperatives

Although not explored in this proposal, to encourage and allow housing cooperatives to grow in Fishermans Bend and elsewhere, streamlining regulation to any current barriers that may exist in establishing housing cooperatives, should be considered a priority by government.

25

7.2Lookingfurtherahead…While the role of the Commonwealth as set out in the National Affordable Housing Agreement (2009) does not include the government in the direct provision or management of social housing, possible funding may still be made available from the Commonwealth at a later date. The Prime Minister, Malcolm Turnbull, has shown interest in the recommendations from the Victorian Royal Commission into Family Violence, while former Australian of the Year Rosie Batty and former Police Chief Commissioner Ken Lay, both of whom testified at the Royal Commission, also sit on the Council of Australian Governments Advisory Panel on Reducing Violence against Women and their Children (McKenzie-Murray, 2016). While no additional funding for family violence services or response has been forthcoming from the Commonwealth, this may change in the future, and such a proposal can demonstrate positive outcomes for those women and children who have experienced family violence from the use of public funds, which is clearly a national issue that requires addressing from all levels of government. This proposal can demonstrate how such a model could work, given the ‘perfect storm’ of the opportunities that Fishermans Bend provides along with the response to the Royal Commission into Family Violence, and therefore may provide a way forward in which the government and other stakeholders could expand this model across the State or even nationally.

26

Above: Iroko Housing, South Bank, London (Haworth Tomkins, 2014)

8.0References

Architecture Design Collaborative (2014), Harbor Mixed Use [online]. Accessed on 25/04/16 at: http://adcollaborative.com/harbor/ Australian Broadcasting Corporation (2015), Fact checker: Without a home [online]. Accessed on 15/04/16 at: http://www.abc.net.au/interactives/homeless/ Australian Government Council on Federal Financial Relations (2016) Affordable Housing Working Group Issues Paper. Accessed 13/04/16 at: http://www.treasury.gov.au/~/media/Treasury/Consultations%20and%20Reviews/Consultations/2016/CFFR%20Affordable%20Housing%20Working%20Group/Key%20Documents/PDF/Issues_Paper.ashx Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (2005) Female SAAP clients and children escaping domestic and family violence 2003-04, AIHW Bulletin, No. 30. Cat. No. AUS 64. Canberra: AIHW. Accessed on 19/04/16 at: http://www.aihw.gov.au/WorkArea/DownloadAsset.aspx?id=6442453397 Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (2013), Housing assistance in Australia 2013. Cat. no. HOU 271. Canberra: AIHW. Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. Accessed 23/05/16 at: http://www.aihw.gov.au/WorkArea/DownloadAsset.aspx?id=60129545051 City of Melbourne (2013), Future Living: A discussion paper identifying issues and options for housing our community. Accessed 25/04/16 at: http://participate.melbourne.vic.gov.au/application/files/1314/1274/9359/Future_Living_community_engagement_MAY13_web.pdf City of Port Phillip (2016), In Our Backyard – Growing Affordable Housing in Port Phillip 2015-2025, draft for adoption as of April 7. Accessed 20/05/16 at: http://www.portphillip.vic.gov.au/www.foskbg.org.au/print_/In_Our_Backyard_-_draft_for_adoption_April_2016_V2_-_7_April_2015(1).pdf City of Port Phillip (2012), Montague Precinct Structure Plan. Accessed 20/05/16 at: http://www.portphillip.vic.gov.au/Binder1(1).pdf

Coin Street Community Builders (2016), What We Do, Our Developments: Iroko Housing Co-Op [online]. Accessed 10/05/16 at http://coinstreet.org/our-developments/iroko-housing-co-op/ Common Equity Housing Limited (2010), Common Equity Housing Profile June 2010: Housing Registrar [online] Accessed 10/05/16 at: http://www.housingregistrar.vic.gov.au/files/15645938-3791-4450-bfa1-9f4700c51d30/Common-Equity-Housing-Profile-June-2010.doc Common Equity Housing Limited (2013), Gipps Street Abbotsford, [online]. Accessed 25/04/16 at: http://www.cehl.com.au/index.php?page=gipps-st-abbotsford Common Equity Housing Limited (2015), Annual Report 2015. Accessed on 20/05/16 at: www.cehl.com.au/index.php?page=annual-report Community Housing Federation of Victoria (2016), Cooperatives, [online]. Accessed on 10/05/16 at: http://www.chfv.org.au/cooperatives/ Commonwealth of Australia (2015), Out of reach? The Australian housing affordability challenge, The Senate Economic References Committee, May 2015. Accessed on 25/04/16 at: http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Economics/Affordable_housing_2013/~/media/Committees/economics_ctte/Affordable_housing_2013/report.pdf Council on Federal Financial Relations (2009), Intergovernmental Agreement on Federal Financial Relations: National Affordable Housing Agreement. Accessed 22/05/16 at: http://www.federalfinancialrelations.gov.au/content/npa/housing/affordable/national-agreement.pdf

27

Daoud, N., Matheson, F., Hamilton-Wright, S. & O’ Campo, P. (2015), Pathways and trajectories linking housing instability and poor health amongst low-income women experiencing intimate partner violence (IPV): Towards a conceptual framework, Women & Health September 2015 (online advance copy). Accessed 13/05/16 at: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Sarah_HamiltonWright/publication/281681708_Pathways_and_Trajectories_Linking_Housing_Instability_and_Poor_Health_among_Low-Income_Women_Experiencing_Intimate_Partner_Violence_IPV_Towards_a_Conceptual_Framework/links/55f59abe08ae6a34f66312ed.pdf Fensham, P. (2016), Vauxhall Nine Elms Battersea development: Lessons for Australian renewal, Planning News [online], Vol. 42, No. 3, April, pp. 22-23. Accessed 11/04/16 at: http://search.informit.com.au/documentSummary;dn=950565158687143;res=IELBUS Fisherman’s Bend Advisory Committee (2015), Fishermans Bend Advisory Committee Report 1, November 2015. Accessed 15/04/16 at: http://www.mpa.vic.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/FBAC-Report-Number-1-October-2015.pdf Gilmour, T. and Milligan, V. (2012) Housing Affordability, Affordable Housing and the Policy Agenda, in Tomlinson, R (ed.) Australia’s Unintended Cities: the impact of housing on urban development, Collingwood: CSIRO Publishing, pp. 51-67. Haworth Tompkins (2014), Built Works: Iroko Housing, [online]. Accessed 22/05/16 at: http://haworthtompkins.com/built/proj22/index.html# Hemingway, W. (2002) Architectural wonders and blunders, The Guardian, October 15, Accessed on 04/05/16 at: http://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2002/oct/14/architecture.artsfeatures1 Keenan, T. (2016), A vacancy tax could provide homes to those who need them, The Age, April 17, Accessed on 17/04/16 at: http://www.theage.com.au/comment/a-vacancy-tax-could-provide-homes-to-those-who-need-them-20160416-go7zq2.html

McCormack, F. (2016) The extraordinary power of politically validating the scourge of domestic violence, The Guardian, March 31, Accessed on 11/04/16 at: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/mar/31/the-extraordinary-power-of-politically-validating-the-scourge-of-domestic-violence McKenzie-Murray, M. (2015) Family violence royal commission finds patterns of failure, The Saturday Paper, April 8, Accessed 11/04/16 at: https://www.thesaturdaypaper.com.au/2016/04/02/family-violence-royal-commission-finds-patterns-failure/14595156003070 Metropolitan Planning Authority (July 2014), Fisherman’s Bend Strategic Framework Plan. Accessed 08/04/16 at: http://www.mpa.vic.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/Fishermans-Bend-Strategic-Framework-Plan-July-2014_medium-res-file.pdf Millar, R, Lucas, C, & Preiss, B. (2015), Report slams Matthew Guy on rezoning of Fishermans Bend, The Age, October 20. Accessed 09/05/16 at: http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/report-slams-matthew-guy-on-rezoning-of-fishermans-bend-20151019-gkcyrv.html Nash, S. (2015), Cooperatives and mutuals – honest broker role helping local government deliver on housing affordability objectives, Municipal Association of Victoria Forum: Case Study 2, February [online]. Accessed 25/04/16 at: http://socialenterprise.com.au/wp-content/uploads/Cooperatives-and-Mutuals.pdf National Housing Affordability Roundtable (2014), Breaking Through the Affordability Ceiling, [online]. Accessed 20/05/16 at: http://bccm.coop/wp/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/HousingAffordability_EB_V01.pdf Perkins, M (2016), Family violence “hubs” offer smooth entry into complex system, The Age, April 2, Viewed 25/04/16 at: http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/family-violence-hubs-offer-smooth-entry-to-complex-system-20160331-gnvc88.html Preiss, B. (2016), Proposed new scheme calls for investors in social good in Victoria, The Age, May 30. Accessed 30/05/16 at: http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/proposed-new-scheme-calls-for-investors-in-social-good-in-victoria-20160529-gp6i28.html

28

Premier of Victoria (2016a), Housing blitz for women and children begins, Press Release: 13 April [online], Viewed on 14/04/16 at: http://www.premier.vic.gov.au/housing-blitz-for-women-and-children-begins/ Premier of Victoria (2016b), Designs released for Victoria’s first ‘vertical school’ Press Release, 25 February [online], Viewed on 14/04/16 at: http://www.premier.vic.gov.au/designs-released-for-victorias-first-vertical-school/ Productivity Commission (2010), Impacts and Benefits of COAG Reforms: Reporting Framework, Research Report, Canberra, December. Accessed 20/05/16 at: http://www.pc.gov.au/inquiries/completed/coag-reporting-busines-vet/framework-report/coag-reforms.pdf Rose, S. (2007), Towering ambition, The Guardian, October 29. Accessed on 10/05/16 at: http://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2007/oct/29/architecture.housing Southwell, J. (2002), Family violence and homelessness: Removing the perpetrator from the home, Domestic Violence and Incest Resource Centre Discussion Paper No. 3, Melbourne. Accessed 12/04/16 at: http://www.dvrcv.org.au/sites/default/files/Family%20violence%20and%20homelessness%20%28full%20paper%29.pdf State of Victoria Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning (2015), Fishermans Bend – Ministerial Advisory Committee Recommendations and Ministerial Response. Accessed 10/04/16 at: http://delwp.vic.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0003/326199/Report-Recommendations-and-Ministerial-Response.pdf State of Victoria, Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning (2016a), Fishermans Bend Recast Vision. Accessed 26/05/16 at: http://haveyoursay.delwp.vic.gov.au/fishermans-bend/documents/36670/download State of Victoria, Department of Treasury and Finance (2016b), Victorian Budget 16/17: Budget Paper No. 3 – Service Delivery. Accessed 20/05/16 at: http://budgetfiles201617.budget.vic.gov.au/2016-17+State+Budget+-+BP3+Service+Delivery.pdf

State of Victoria (2016c), Royal Commission into Family Violence: Summary and recommendations, Parliament Paper No 132 (2014–16). Accessed 01/04/16 at: http://files.rcfv.com.au/Reports/Final/RCFV-All-Volumes.pdf Judith Stubbs and Associates (2013), Affordable Housing Options Paper [online]. Accessed 10/04/16 at: http://www.mpa.vic.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Affordable-Housing-Options-Paper.pdf Victorian Council of Social Services (2014), Making Social Housing Work: Better Outcomes for Low-Income Victorians [online]. Accessed 20/05/16 at: http://www.vcoss.org.au/documents/2014/04/Making-Social-Housing-Work-Web.pdf Victoria State Government Department of Human Services (2011), Nation Building – Victoria working with the Australian Government [online]. Accessed 20/05/16 at: http://www.dhs.vic.gov.au/about-the-department/plans,-programs-and-projects/projects-and-initiatives/housing-and-accommodation/nation-building-victoria-working-with-australian-government Victoria State Government (2015), Housing (Chapter 5), Plan Melbourne Refresh Discussion Paper and Ministerial Advisory Committee Report [online]. Accessed on 10/04/6 at: http://refresh.planmelbourne.vic.gov.au/plan-melbourne-refresh-discussion-paper Victoria State Government (2016), Housing Registrar: Housing Associations [webpage]. Accessed 20/05/16 at: http://www.housingregistrar.vic.gov.au/Registered-Housing-Sector/Housing-association Tomazin, F. (2016) East West Link homes could be used to help family violence victims, The Age, April 9. Accessed April 9 at: http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/east-west-link-homes-could-be-used-to-help-family-violence-victims-20160408-go29a9.html Tomazin, F. (2016), Housing groups calls for new vacancy tax to fund family violence programs, The Age, April 16. Accessed April 16 at: http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/housing-groups-calls-for-new-vacancy-tax-to-fund-family-violence-programs-20160416-go7viz.html

29

UNESCO Management of Social Transformations Clearinghouse (2007), Co-operative Housing in Canada: A Model for Empowered Communities. Accessed 10/05/16 at: http://www.unesco.org/most/usa3.htm Women’s Housing Limited (2015), The Role of Housing in our response to family violence, submission to the Victorian Royal Commission on Family Violence [online]. Accessed on 10/05/16 at: http://www.rcfv.com.au/getattachment/8F15DD85-FDA4-408C-B9F7-E93A4FF4A466/Women's-Housing-Limited Women’s Housing Limited (2012), Our Properties: Housing Development [website]. Accessed 20/05/16 at: http://www.womenshousing.com.au/our-properties/housing-development

Wood, G., Batterham, D., Cigdem, M. & Mallett, S. (2015) The structural drivers of homelessness in Australia 2001–11, AHURI Final Report No. 238, Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute Limited, Melbourne, Accessed on 13/04/16 at: http://www.ahuri.edu.au/research/final-reports/238 World Health Organisation (2013), Global and regional estimates of violence against women: prevalence and health effects of intimate partner violence and non-partner sexual violence, WHO Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data, Geneva: Switzerland. Accessed 20/05/16 at: http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/10665/85239/1/9789241564625_eng.pdf Yates, J (2013) Evaluating Social and affordable housing reform in Australia: lessons to be learned from history, International Journal of Housing Policy 13 (2), pp. 111-133.

30