Can Australia Emulate Singapore's HDB Scheme to Solve Housing Problems?

LGenghiz88 on 15/04/2025 - 00:32
Last edited 15/04/2025 - 13:31 by 1 other user

Affordable housing is a hot topic nowadays.
Can we look to Singapore's HDB scheme to solve this country's housing shortage?
Singapore's HDB is not perfect. Can we take some of the good bits from it and make it suit Australia?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2cjPgNBNeLU

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3dBaEo4QplQ

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ya-pdE-wH-k

The videos are pretty short. A summary won't do it justice but here goes …

1) Singapore created a housing scheme since the 1960s to provide a home to all its people. In fact homeownership in Singapore is one of the highest in the world. Above the 90% mark.
2) The homes are cheaper, because they are partly subsidized by the government. Furthermore (not mentioned in the video), mass production of homes (cookie cutter homes) brings down cost. I guess cutting out the middle man also also brings down costs..
3) The videos do warn about the Singapore government attempting to manage demographics and via the scheme, influence elections.
4) Not mentioned in the video, the Singapore government does "forcibly" (I think they call it compulsory purchase) acquire land for the HDB scheme. But they "probably" pay for the land at fair value. Australia has lots of land compared to Singapore, but people want to live in "desirable" areas. And a lot of people here will be unhappy seeing a 20 storey building next to their mansion or blocking their harbor view. "Not in my backyard syndrome".
5) The building and land are still owned by the Singapore government (99 year lease - this is a norm in countries where land is limited). The advantage is that the HDB units are surprisingly well maintained/managed and the value of the property appreciates very well with time.
6) There are limitations (regarding renting them out or selling them) , but the main aim is to provide shelter.

I think there are some bits in the scheme, Australia can emulate. A$10 billion? You don't have to provide a free home, just a home the people can afford to pay for. Some form of ownership brings forth responsibility. And spend the money well, providing a large livable space (not a prison cell), with amenities, schools, transport and security. People who get these homes have to follow some strict rules (maintenance, cleanliness, neighborliness, security, etc) which enhances to the value of the property.

Home & Garden

Comments

  • AngoraFish on 15/04/2025 - 00:52
    +7

    Yes, significant direct government investment in housing, particularly in public housing, is ultimately the only way to improve housing affordability in Australia short of reducing the population.

    This is how Australia became a nation of home owners after world war two, and what has largely been missing for the last few decades.

    Rent stabilization, genuine long term leases, sensible housing densities, and housing cooperatives are also helpful.

    It all combines to make housing affordable and renting desirable.

    In the meantime, removing incentives for investors to compete in the housing market by eliminating capital gains tax exemptions and negative gearing will also help.

    • ForkSnorter on 15/04/2025 - 07:34
      +1

      Yes, significant direct government investment in housing, particularly in public housing, is ultimately the only way to improve housing affordability in Australia short of reducing the population.

      Australian government can't afford it because it's spending all its money on Negative Gearing, CGT discount, and never-ending handouts to people to encourage them to get into the existing property market to help drive up the price of property, thereby helping wealthy property investors (including many politicians) become increasingly more wealthy without having to lift a finger.

      By creating the ideal conditions for property investors to become richer and richer while simultaneously pumping enormous amounts of public money into the market, the Australian government is essentially giving money directly to property investors. It's welfare (government assistance) for the rich.

    • boomramada on 15/04/2025 - 10:16

      So where is this money coming from, cutting back on Medicare? Increase the tax rate by 10% more?

      • AngoraFish on 15/04/2025 - 11:10
        +1

        Not donating billions to the US for nuclear subs that we will never receive would be a good start.

        We could follow that up by eliminating capital gains tax concessions and negative gearing, since these policies are just making the problem worse.

        The public build model is already well established, by the way, it isn't fantasy thinking.

        It's called Defence Housing Australia https://www.dha.gov.au/ , which is an existing government department. It even makes a profit.

        At any time and with very little effort the government could simply expanded DHA's responsibilities to include building and maintaining public housing.

        • boomramada on 15/04/2025 - 11:31

          Yeah, I agree with the Sub-project, but we were desperate about that.
          But I'm failing to see how negative gearing is going to be replaced by building government apartments using the cheapest sub-subcontractors. And all the housing trust recipients in one apartment building, that would be very healthy lol.
          Btw, DHA in Canberra long leases rental properties from landlords etc, they sublease to people, and not all are defence build.

          • AngoraFish on 15/04/2025 - 11:36

            @boomramada: I didn't say anything about squeezing people into tall apartment buildings, that model has not been a thing for at least 30 years.

            Most government builds nowadays are public private partnerships with lower rise accommodation and a mixture of private and public owned options.

            DHA offers a range of housing types and build and rental models depending what works best for what they are tying to achieve, and all of which would be fine for the purpose of this discussion.

            • boomramada on 15/04/2025 - 12:56

              @AngoraFish: I'm still failing to see cutting down negative gearing and government building houses going to save government money. And will that reduce the overall house prices if so how?

              And if the government builds houses, there would be some areas where no one wants to live, keep in mind SG and AUS like you comparing SG vs SYD CBD.

              • AngoraFish on 15/04/2025 - 13:20
                +1

                @boomramada: Nothing about this conversation is about saving the government money.

                Governments exist to provide services. The way they pay for this is through taxation. What the taxes that governments collect are spent on is a choice.

                It is almost universally acknowledged that housing in Australia has become increasingly inequitable and unaffordable.

                To reduce house prices, or at least to reduce the rate of increase in house prices, one can either increase supply, reduce demand, or both.

                Governments building more houses obviously increases supply. Removing investors from the housing market reduces the number of people bidding up house prices. In the end both are required.

                Ultimately, evidence from both the post-WWII period and the DHA is that government built housing can be profitable, however ultimately it doesn't much matter given that something needs to be done and the only way that anything will change is if the government gets involved.

                The government is not going to build houses in the outback, they are going to build houses in capital cities and large regional towns. I'm unclear what thought process might be involved in thinking that the government is somehow going to end up building houses where nobody wants to live.

                Private developers will not reduce house prices because they have no interest in doing so. They are very happy with their existing margins and will deliberately hold onto developable land to prop up house prices by not flooding the market. The idea that developers are going to build enough housing on their own is magical thinking.

                This article explains the effect of negative gearing and the capital gains tax discount on house prices https://australiainstitute.org.au/post/negative-gearing-and-…

                • boomramada on 15/04/2025 - 15:44
                  -1

                  @AngoraFish:

                  Nothing about this conversation is about saving the government money.

                  Gov won't spend money on things unless there is a gain (at least a political). You said it, capital gain costs money to the gov, yet they go by it. Because it's still better than any other alternative solution out there.

                  Yeah, there are tons of articles that try to explain negative gearing is bad, yet it is still better than the next best solution. So based on that article, getting rid of it means, the government need to spend a crazy amount of money on building houses with ever-growing construction costs, lack of tradies etc, good luck. Remember the Mr Fluffy project LOL

  • Benoffie on 15/04/2025 - 01:13
    +2

    South Australia had an excellent scheme - SAHT.

    It was then essentially privatised, inspectors were removed, responsibility on tenants removed, and buildings sold off to NGOs.

    You can look up the years of complaints plaguing Housing SA now with empty houses, houses being sold off to developers etc.

    Governments arent interested. And they aren't interested in making tenants responsible either

    • jv on 15/04/2025 - 01:42
      +4

      excellent scheme - SAHT.

      Is that the past tense?

      • a1studmuffin on 16/04/2025 - 13:06

        No, that was the SA Housing Retroactive Trust (SAHRT). They followed through after this with SAHT.

    • Nugs on 15/04/2025 - 07:12
      +4

      Our first house was housing trust built, we were the second private owners. It was 30+ years old at time of purchase and structurally sound.
      Privatisation has yet to prove positive as far as I can tell; housing, electricity, transport, telecommunications. How on earth can adding a layer or ten of profit make the final price cheaper for end user?
      .

  • freefall101 on 15/04/2025 - 01:21
    +3

    It’d be extremely difficult to transition to a HDB like structure at this point. It’s the kind of thing that works if you stick with it for decades. Labor is putting in billions to build a few homes, but it’s hard when they don’t already own the land or have a willingness to use compulsory acquisition.

    We definitely should be more social housing with long term leases. That sits with the states though, like a lot of housing policy. Density often sits with councils, which is absurd.

    Ultimately we have a huge supply issue though. Doesn’t matter who builds it, new supply has dropped. The federal government should have seen this supply crunch coming once the immigration floodgate opened back up. Even now, despite massive demand, not much housing is being built - if anything it’s falling further due to lack of funds and construction companies failing.

    • jv on 15/04/2025 - 01:43
      -1

      Labor is putting in billions to build a few homes

      How many have they built so far?

      • JIMB0 on 15/04/2025 - 07:09
        -5

        Hopefully none. People should get a job and buy their own house to live in.

      • freefall101 on 15/04/2025 - 10:56

        They built a fund! I hear Chalmers is using it as a Scrooge McDuck style swimming pool.

    • tenpercent on 15/04/2025 - 08:01

      but it’s hard when they don’t already own the land

      The federal government owns ship tonnes of land.

      • ThithLord on 15/04/2025 - 08:39
        +1

        but it’s hard when they don’t already own the land

        that's close enough resources to service the population.

        No point building communities hours out of town, where all the services, jobs and resources are.

  • jv on 15/04/2025 - 01:41
    -2

    no

  • AustriaBargain on 15/04/2025 - 02:29

    Would be happy to live in such an apartment, or even own one. If I started getting a little wealthy I might even get two next to each other and connect them. It would be great to forget the sickness that is housing in Australia and just start living your life in one of these. A house or a cool city apartment just costs too much and is going to cost a lot more because there's so many people who need to rent and want to own one.

    I'm a very indoor person so I just need rooms to mount my TV, a room for dining table, my own bedroom, and climate control between like 19-24 degrees ideally. That's all, I don't want to get rich off the place I'm living in one day, I don't even necessarily want to own it, just need somewhere to live and know it'll cost me the same 20 years from now if I settle in the area. I don't need my housing to be part of any scheme or market or feel like a lottery ticket to a wealthy retirement,

    I don't need to own one I don't live in, like holy frick there must be loads of people who just want somewhere reliable to live. It can't cost all that much to keep these places maintained and checked on, maybe it could even create a few public sector jobs, wouldn't add that much money per year per apartment to have it be part of a minimally managed society, same as council rates can pay for comfortable safe societies for very little money per house.

    But if say one million people agreed and fell into such public housing, that would probably erode billions from houses. A million people times decades of the extra rent and mortgage costs of being in the bubble, would take away hundreds of billions of dollars being pumped into the free housing market. That's money out of rich people, and aspiring rich people's imaginary, pockets. That's a vote loser. Imagine you had a power that let you win at pokies every time, and you're at the machine starting to rack up a fortune, and someone comes up to you sand says "vote for me and we'll replace all the pokies machines that are immune to your magic winning powers", you'd never vote for such a guy. You'd probably become scared of that guy and start convincing as many people as you could that he can't be trusted, that's he's a fool, that he falls of stages, that only insane stupid people believe what he says.

  • mapax on 15/04/2025 - 06:03
    +7

    Housing and property is grotesquely expensive because Australia is full.
    Zero immigration would fix the issue.
    But then I guess there’d be no slave labour for the rich.

    • JIMB0 on 15/04/2025 - 07:14
      +7

      But then I guess there’d be no slave labour for the rich.

      There'd be no-one to deliver uber orders, drive trucks or work in the factories. A lot of locals think that kind of work is beneath them and would rather stay on the dole.

      • tenpercent on 15/04/2025 - 07:27

        What do you think they're studying? Bachelor of Uber Eats Delivery /s

        The way our 'modern' economies are structured requires a certain proportion of the population to be unemployed. It would be terrible for the rich and everyone else if unemployment fell too low. Currently that proportion is around 4%.

        https://www.rba.gov.au/education/resources/explainers/nairu.…

    • tenpercent on 15/04/2025 - 07:32
      +1

      Australia's housing is full.
      We already have 250k homeless growing by 10k per month.
      We are building new dwellings slower than new immigrant family units are arriving.
      Australians are literally being displaced into homelessness by new immigrants who have enough money to bid up rents and outbid around 10k people each and every month.

      There isn't a magic 'increase supply of dwellings' lever, but there is a fairly quick acting 'slow down increase in demand for dwellings' lever. Anyone who argues against that second lever is arguing for increasing Australia's homelessness crisis.

  • McMaferMur on 15/04/2025 - 08:25
    +3

    Nope. Our culture is different here. Too many migrants here

  • tenpercent on 15/04/2025 - 08:28

    OP, can you summarise the content of the vidoes?

  • plmko on 15/04/2025 - 08:32
    +4

    You had your chance in 2019 but you voted Scott Morrison.

    Therefore politically no one will touch the issue for at least 20 years.

  • JIMB0 on 15/04/2025 - 08:32
    +2

    Government housing: Where the bins are always full, the lawns are never mowed, and the rusted-out Commodore on bricks has had more tenants than the house itself.
    Every front yard is a treasure trove of broken appliances and assorted mystery rubbish — a busted pram here, a mouldy couch there — all guarded by a letterbox that hasn’t stood upright since 2003.

    • Duckie2hh on 15/04/2025 - 09:27

      Love it.

    • VFM on 15/04/2025 - 14:39

      Tell me that you have never been to Singapore without saying you have never been to Singapore.

      • JIMB0 on 15/04/2025 - 15:03
        +1

        Even if Singapore had front yards, they'd fine you $500 for a stray leaf. Meanwhile in Australia, a busted fridge on the lawn is practically a cultural landmark in public housing.

  • TEER3X on 15/04/2025 - 08:45
    +1

    Our population has exceeded housing availablity and infrastructure. So we have sky high property prices and horrible traffic.

    So immigration is the problem, but it's also propping up the economy which means more income generated for the country.

    Good for the country, not necessarily good for the individual.

    • Duckie2hh on 15/04/2025 - 09:30

      Lol blame the immigrants. Who's going to build those infrastructure and houses that we all need? We don't support apprentices enough.

      Australia's net positive immigration is the only thing that is helping our growth. Imagine if you cut off immigration. Stagnant population, no introduction of critical skills and every other kid wanting to be a traffic warden to earn $130K/year.

  • Ocker on 15/04/2025 - 09:15
    -1

    a net 200,000 foreign students arriving in February further exaberates the housing shortage

    • tenpercent on 15/04/2025 - 10:48

      But who will deliver my uber eats if they don't come? /s

      • Ocker on 15/04/2025 - 11:42
        +1

        Not to mention be the cashier at petrol stations

  • Duckie2hh on 15/04/2025 - 09:25
    +2

    Singapore's HDB is not perfect

    You mean paying a mortgage for a 99 year loan only to not have any accumulated wealth to pass on to your kids? lol. Singapore HDB system is a joke.

    • Genghiz88 on 15/04/2025 - 10:04
      +1

      Yes, it seems ridiculous. But that is the norm in countries with limited land like Singapore and Hong Kong.
      In Australia, land isn't really a problem.

      • Duckie2hh on 15/04/2025 - 10:44

        Yes. Lack of housing in Australia is caused by red tape, rather than by lack of land (not including exceptional areas/landlocked areas).

    • AngoraFish on 15/04/2025 - 11:28
      +2

      Nearly all land in in the ACT is held on a 99 year lease. If you own a home in Canberra you are technically leasing the land it's built on. The median house price in Canberra is currently around $970,000.

      Most of Australia's container ports and airports are on 99 year leases and these are literally worth billions.

      In nearly all cases 99 year leases are renewed on a rolling basis.

      There is no practical difference between a 99 year lease and full ownership, and 99 year leases have no practical impact on "accumulated wealth".

      • Duckie2hh on 15/04/2025 - 11:31
        +1

        True True. With the exception that there is no option to "renew" a 99 year lease in SG.

  • Duckie2hh on 15/04/2025 - 09:27
    +2

    Easiest solution. No NIMBY-ism. More government audits to ensure high density buildings are built to code and hold the directors personally responsible for those that don't. Let the market dictate the demand. Just remove the red tape.

  • 7ekn00 on 15/04/2025 - 09:40
    +1

    Anybody built in Australia lately?!? The cost of building these "new homes" is also insanely expensive!

    You could give away land, and the cost would still be inhibitive to a lot of people :/

    • Duckie2hh on 15/04/2025 - 09:56

      Gotta allow people to build those lego brick homes or container living :p

  • MrThing on 15/04/2025 - 10:14

    the type of housing people in Singapore are used to is the polar opposite of what Australians want

    if you were to have what Australians want but in Singapore (ie; a detached property) you need to be wealthier than you need to be in Australia

    • Duckie2hh on 15/04/2025 - 10:45

      Perhaps younger people should change their expectations based on the current situation. No, you won't have a house on a quarter acre block, 15 minutes from CBD, as your first property.

      There is nothing wrong with apartments, rentals, townhouses or god forbit, living further from the CBD.

      • MrThing on 15/04/2025 - 11:06

        Its understandable to think kids want what their parents have / had

        But its also fair to expect people to re-evaluate their expectations. Most double income young families will never be able to buy a detached house in the eastern subs, inner west, north shore or northern beaches unless they have significant help from their parents.

        • Duckie2hh on 15/04/2025 - 11:12

          Yup…. It sucks. The only thing I can say sadly is, decrease your expectations or….. embrace country living.

    • Genghiz88 on 15/04/2025 - 11:39

      That is true.
      In fact a lot of the younger generation have given up owning a home and have embraced renting.
      I do know people who buy an apartment and then upgrade to a landed property later in their career.

      • MrThing on 15/04/2025 - 12:24
        +1

        Renting is the norm in Europe, maybe we need to adjust our thinking

        They have a longer history, larger populations and less space… Maybe they have it right, high density is the way to go

  • coffeeinmyveins on 15/04/2025 - 10:52
    +1

    considering how many investment properties our politicians and their mates have, nope.

  • GordonD on 15/04/2025 - 11:38
    +1

    Einstein is quoted as having said "we cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them".

    The current crop of politicians, on both sides, will not be able to solve Australia's housing problem, they created it.

    The problem is they are trying to solve it to get a different solution to the rest of us. We want the solution of homes our kids can afford. They are trying to solve it to make housing a profitable investment that will accommodate a rapidly increasing population. The price of it isn't a problem to them, as long as it keeps increasing. And their kids won't have a problem getting a home of their own because they have their parents, who have been enriched by investing in housing, to help them.

    They get to the solution they want with a growing national GDP built not on people getting richer, but on there being more people as a result of big immigration. The road to the solution we want is a lot smaller immigration. That might result in some pain in some regards, but that's generally the case when you kick an addiction. Australia's economy is addicted to immigration. Its health is being damaged by it. A bigger hit might make it feel better for a little while, but it doesn't solve the problem.

    Both parties housing policies of using taxpayers money to help people get into a home - ie, increase demand - will just drive prices up higher and faster.

  • tsunamisurfer on 15/04/2025 - 12:46

    The HDB model is still open to market forces, there are some areas where the cost of a HDB has smashed past S$1m for a 3 x 1.

    HDB apartments have become affordable only because they have allowed their own mandatory super (CPF) to partly fund their homes so the outlay from the owner's in hand income is less.

    We do not do that here for good reason.

    Singaporeans also expect the current generation to take care of their parents, the expectation is multi-generational living. Even their version of Medicare is linked to family. If someone uses up their Medicare allotment, they must then start to draw from their children's.

    Be careful before coveting other people's systems

    • GordonD on 15/04/2025 - 12:59

      We do not do that here

      Have you check the Coalition's election promises lately?

      Specifically the ones they made just this week.

  • md333 on 15/04/2025 - 12:52
    -1

    I don't think the forcibly resuming entire suburbs to build high rises model will be popular in Australia.
    My parents in law had this happen to them in the 80s in Singapore. I'm told everyone was running around planting fruit trees as the govt paid out an additional compensation per fruit tree on your land.

  • Genghiz88 on 15/04/2025 - 15:03

    That's part of the reason. There are others.
    Government subsidy.
    Higher volume development -> lower cost.
    The government not doing it for profit.

  • GordonD on 16/04/2025 - 15:38

    The government not doing something to make a profit sounds like it should be cheaper. But the need by business to make a profit provides an incentive to do it economically, they go broke of they don't, whereas the government can just spend more and go further into debt on our behalf, or provide less of other services.

    We saw an example here in Adelaide. The government built the new Royal Adelaide Hospital. Just down the road Calvary built a new private hospital. The new RAH was way way over budget and became the most expensive building built in Australia, and cost four times as much per bed as the private hospital. It was even more expensive than the new Canberra Parliament House, which I believe previously held the record for how much it cost and how far over budget it was.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join