The politics of state rental housing in New South Wales, 1900 - 1939 : three case studies

The history of housing policy in New South Wales has been one of consistent disengagement of government from issues of low-income housing provision. Characteristically, until the 19405, government responses were dictated from within a laissez-faire liberal framework in which housing provision was best left to the operations of market forces. This impacted severely on the availability of appropriate and affordable housing for low-income people. Insofar as low-income housing policy was addressed at all, it was usually in terms of encouraging people into home ownership. Nevertheless, the period from around 1900 to 1940 saw the beginnings of deliberate government intervention in the housing market in piecemeal attempts to address the issue. A range of factors combined to produce this outcome, including outbreaks of contagious disease in badly drained and unsewered slum precincts, and increasing pressure from a range of disparate groups. These included the nascent town planning lobby, church and charity bodies, and not least, working class organisations and working class people themselves. Business interest in redeveloping prime commercial sites also played a role in the moves for slum clearance. The period was characterised by a series of attempts to resolve low-income housing problems in Sydney, or at least, the problems of slum clearance. These ranged from State resumption of The Rocks area, to attempts by both city governments and State governments to provide minimal amounts of public housing for some of those displaced by resumptions, and included attempts at encouraging self-help and self- reliance by church and charitable agencies, as well as State bodies. They also included attempts to address the problems of low—income tenants in the private rental market by legislative means: for example, by introducing rent control and some limited efforts to control the rate of evictions during the Depression era. The fact remains, that the period is characterised by a marked failure to undertake any substantive initiatives that would make a serious contribution to resolving the manifest problems. The reasons for this failure are complex, but include a policy commitment to home ownership (and to separate homes on separate sites at that), a prevailing ideology of laissez faire liberalism, and a shifting of responsibility for dealing with the problems between local and State authorities. It was only at the end of the period that the State Government accepted the responsibility for ensuring some attempt at meeting the needs of low—income people