Note: Where available, the PDF/Word icon below is provided to view the complete and fully formatted document
The future of aged persons housing: what role for independent living units?

Download PDFDownload PDF



What role for Independent Living Units?

Presented by

Sean McNelis

Swinburne Institute for Social Research

Current and Future Challenges Facing the Provision of Independent Housing

and Services for Victorian Seniors


Friday 30


July 2004

The Future of Aged Persons Housing: What role for Independent Living Units ‐ Sean McNelis


(1) Introduction

There is an emerging crisis within housing for older persons, a crisis which will primarily affect

older renters but would also include some owner-occupiers with very low valued houses.

Today I want to focus particularly on the role of independent living units in the future of aged

housing. But before I get to that I want to put ILUs in some context by briefly mentioning three of

the many dimensions of this housing crisis: the first relates to older renters; the second to ourselves;

and, the third to our collective response.

(2) Older renters

The first dimension to this crisis is older renters themselves. Approximately 10-15% or about

70,000 older people in Victoria are renting. Moreover, given the ageing of the population and the

reduction in the rate of owner-occupation, we can expect these numbers to increase quite

significantly over the coming decades.

For those who rely upon the private sector for housing, retirement and the consequent drop in

income brings with it a housing crisis. No longer do they have sufficient income to afford the rent ‐

for a while they can rely upon their savings, if they have any ‐ but basically they go in search of a

social housing option that is affordable and that meets their particular values, needs and preferences.

The crisis for older renters is also deeply personal. Age can bring with it disabilities, loss of skills,

isolation, frailty and vulnerability; within ethnic communities, a return to the primary language. It

brings new opportunities and new perspectives. But it can also brings with it a tension between

seeking security (in its many forms) and seeking independence.

(3) Ourselves and the housing crisis for older Australians

The second dimension of the housing crisis for older Australians is ourselves. It is about each of us

appreciating just what is at stake when a person does not have adequate and appropriate housing.

The issue here is about our own hearts and minds.

I would invite to reflect upon, to recall and to mull over what home means to you.

Adequate and appropriate housing is a major factor in the quality of life and wellbeing of older

people. For older people, their housing is symbol of their independence, their housing and their

local community is a link with their personal history and with their identity ‐ a place full of

memories, hopes and joys; a place for meeting the challenges of disappointments and sadnesses.

That is why most older people want to continue living within their local communities and local

neighbourhoods. That is why the main game in housing for older persons is not residential aged

care but rather independent housing.

The second dimension of the housing crisis for older Australians is ourselves.

∞ It is about our individual and collective capacity for understanding, our capacity to enter

into the hopes and dreams of older people, it is our capacity for solidarity.

∞ It is about confronting our biases, our assumptions about renting, about the value of owner-

occupation and how these impact on the renting as a viable and legitimate form of tenure

and, confronting our assumptions about older people and about ageing.

∞ It is about our capacity for collaboration, to think beyond the horizons of our own

organisations to the greater good, to the role we can play in the larger picture.

The Future of Aged Persons Housing: What role for Independent Living Units ‐ Sean McNelis


∞ It is about our individual and collective failure of vision and fantasy, our failure to

appreciate just what is at stake when an older person does not have adequate and

appropriate housing.

Until we can do this more adequately both individually and collectively then many older people will

continue to have inadequate housing, indeed very poor housing.

(4) Our collective response

The third dimension of the housing crisis for older Australians is the inadequacy of our collective


Older renters have three main options ‐ public housing, community housing and independent living

units ‐ in all about 27,000 units in Victoria. Let me briefly work through the current status of each

of these options.

4.1 Public housing

The first and most extensive option is public housing with 18,000 units for older persons in Victoria

or about two-thirds of units for older persons. Since 1968 when the Commonwealth first provided

funds to the States specifically for older persons housing, housing for older persons has been a

specific target group. These units are provided in a range of settings:

∞ Stand-alone high-rise towers such as Crown Street Flemington and Holmes Street


∞ High-rise towers located on a larger public housing area such as Melrose Street North


∞ Flats in 2-3 storey complexes

∞ Clusters of units scattered through Melbourne and rural Victoria.

But the traditional separation within public housing of family housing and housing for older people

is no longer relevant. Many older people now live in what were once family units ‐ in high-rise

flats, walk-up flats and houses.

In recent years the Office of Housing has undertaken a number of initiatives:

∞ The conversion of bedsitter units into one-bedroom units

∞ The upgrade of existing units

∞ It has sought to address the support needs of older public housing tenants by providing

aged care packages specifically to this group

∞ Indeed, where it has acquired new stock, it has given priority to acquiring new housing for

older persons.

For over two decades we have had substantial underinvestment in social housing. We still do not

have a sustainable financial system for social housing. What is most striking about the directions of

the Office of Housing is that most, if not all CSHA funds are or will directed at upgrading and

redeveloping existing stock ‐ it is possible that by the end of the current CSHA, the Office of

Housing may have to sell stock in order to upgrade and redevelop other stock. As a result, we will

find that virtually there will be no new public housing stock for older persons.

The Future of Aged Persons Housing: What role for Independent Living Units ‐ Sean McNelis


4.2 Community housing

From 1970s the Office of Housing has developed joint ventures with community organisations and

local government to provide housing for older persons. Around an estimated 2,000 units for older

persons ‐ just under one-tenth the total - are managed by Community Housing Organisations.

But the expansion of community housing relies on CSHA funds and again the funds available are

very limited and the prospect of any significant expansion of this sector is low.

So here we have two key providers of social housing for older renters virtually at a standstill, while

the demand is increasing.

(5) Independent Living Units: Will they have a role in the future?

So we come to ‐ Independent Living Units, the third option for older people with relatively low

assets and low income. As you know, as ILU managers, their situation is just as dire, maybe even

more so.

Let me not bore you with the details you already well know ‐ and for those of you who don’t, I

refer you to the paper I prepared for the AHURI-Myer Foundation “Housing Futures in an Ageing

Australia Conference” and to the more extensive papers on the AHURI website (See Section 7.1


5.1 Independent Living Units?

First, let me first clarify what I’m referring to as ILUs and ILU organisations. I use the term

“Independent Living Unit” to refer to those units which are provided by not-for-profit organisations

and which are or can be targeted at older persons with relatively low incomes and low assets. Of

particular note are those units acquired with subsidies through the Aged Persons Homes Act

between 1954 and 1984. I refer to this as the first phase of the retirement village industry. The term

ILU does not refer to: (i) private sector retirement villages (ii) commercial retirement villages by

not-for-profit organisations where the entry contribution is more than $100,000 (or to be more

technical, those residents eligible for Commonwealth rent assistance).


5.2 Overview

I now want to go immediately to the conclusion of those papers I referred to above, then work back

through some of the key findings and press upon you the urgency of the situation and strategies

which we need to initiate now ‐ not in three or four years time, not even 12 months time.

The future of ILUs for older persons provided by not-for-profit organisations is at a watershed.

ILUs are a unique and particularly important social housing option for older persons with no assets

or relatively low assets. At around 7,000 units in Victoria, ILU organisations provide approximately

25% of social housing for older persons ‐ in some municipalities, it constitutes more than 50% of

social housing for older persons.

Over the next decade, ILU organisations face some major challenges:

∞ to reaffirm their vision and their mission;

∞ to adopt a more strategic approach to their future and respond to local housing needs;

∞ to facilitate the ongoing development not just of individual organisations but of an ILU



According to current Centrelink provisions, where a resident pays an ingoing contribution equal to or less than the

‘extra allowable amount’, they may qualify for rent assistance. The ‘extra allowable amount’ is the difference

between the non-homeowner and the homeowner assets tests. Currently it is $108,000.

The Future of Aged Persons Housing: What role for Independent Living Units ‐ Sean McNelis


∞ to find ways in which to regenerate their stock and meet the new expectations of older

people and communities;

∞ to update their management and governance practices; and

∞ to explore the potential, opportunities and disadvantages of linking ILUs and aged care


Unless they meet these challenges, the number of ILUs will dramatically decrease with major

implications for Commonwealth and State programs for older persons. Already some organisations

have withdrawn from providing ILUs. Others are seriously considering withdrawing. Others have

not yet become attuned to the emerging issues. Already, publicly, in February this year, the

Southern Territory of the Salvation Army announced that it was withdrawing from providing aged

care services in Australia. This included the sale of its retirement villages which provided

independent housing for over 1,000 older persons including around 700 ILUs. Where does your

organisation lie? Does it see the importance of ILUs to the future of housing for older persons? Or

is your organisation only interested in the side-game ‐ residential aged care?

ILU stock is not only ageing but in many instances no longer meets the current needs and

expectations of older persons. For this reason, many organisations have been compelled to stop and

reconsider their future role in providing independent housing for older persons. However, what is

forcing the direction of decisions about the future is not so much the condition of their stock, but

rather access to capital funds with which to upgrade, reconfigure and redevelop ILUs to meet the

changing expectations.

Any extensive reduction in ILUs will have a dramatic impact on the housing options of aged

pensioners, particularly those in the private rental market. Stable and secure housing is an essential

pre-requisite if community aged care services are to sustain older persons in their homes longer.

The Commonwealth Government as part of the National Strategy for an Ageing Australia has taken

few steps, as yet, to address the housing options of aged pensioners in the private rental market.

ILUs could play a major role in providing a stable and secure setting for the delivery of community

aged care services.

Any extensive reduction in ILUs will also have a major impact on State Housing Authorities

(SHAs) whose primary role is to meet the housing needs of this group of older persons. Currently,

SHAs face similar stock issues to ILU organisations ‐ ageing, undersized stock in poor condition.

Most CSHA funds are now committed to the pressing demands for the upgrade, renewal and

redevelopment of SHA housing stock.

If left to them many ILU organisations will have no option but to withdraw their stock. I believe it

is time that ILU organisations, peak aged care organisations, Commonwealth, State and Local

Government begin to work together and preserve this valuable resource.

5.3 Critical issues

ILU organisations face critical issues in six areas:

∞ housing market/target group

∞ housing stock

∞ finding capital

∞ management

∞ linkages with support/community care services, and

∞ ongoing sector development

The Future of Aged Persons Housing: What role for Independent Living Units ‐ Sean McNelis


I want to go through each of these six areas noting the critical issues and propose some key

strategies ‐ no doubt you can think of better ones.

The extent to which an issue is relevant to any particular ILU organisation is variable. ILU

organisations are very diverse: some have actively dealt with the issues; some are currently dealing

with them; some are dealing with them to varying extents, and; some have little awareness of them.

5.4 Housing market/target group

While ILU organisations have a diversity of target groups they tend to accommodate what might be

described as the “genteel” older person, i.e. those who can live independently, fit in with the culture

of the village and present few problems for managers.

But the demand for ILUs has reduced because:

∞ older persons have higher housing expectations than the size and quality of the ILU being

offered, and

∞ older owner-occupiers are remaining in their own homes longer.

The key strategy for an ILU organisation is to move into new territory and re-orient their

organisation around a new target group - those who rent privately but only have some limited or

even no assets.

5.5 Housing stock

After 20, 30 or 40 years of operations many ILU organisations have major issues with their current

housing stock. It is primarily this issue which has forced many ILU organisations to stop and reflect

on their future directions and role as a provider of ILUs.

Current ILU stock is predominantly bedsitters and small 1-bedroom units. A significant proportion

of the older stock is below current community standards.

Already some organisations have begun or are planning to upgrade, reconfigure and demolish units.

ILU organisations not only have to upgrade dwellings to contemporary building and technological

standards, but they also have to meet higher expectations in relation to the size, design, facilities

and use of units.

5.6 Finding Capital

While the current condition of ILU stock has forced ILU organisations to stop and reflect on their

future role as providers of ILUs, their future target groups as well as the future of their housing

stock, it is the financial issues that largely drive these future directions setting the parameters for

what they may or may not be able to do.

A prevailing view among many ILU organisations is that the provision of ILUs is no longer

financially viable. This runs contrary to the experience of both State Housing Authorities and

Community Housing Organisations who currently provide housing to low-income households at

concessional rentals.

The big issue, however, is finding capital to upgrade, reconfigure and rebuild housing stock. It is

further complicated because many ILU organisations not only face major demands for capital for

their ILUs but also for their residential aged care facilities.

So what can we do? Indeed there are no easy answers. So it takes an enormous commitment to the

goal of providing housing for older people with few assets. And this is more than likely the crucial

issue ‐ the one of commitment.

The Future of Aged Persons Housing: What role for Independent Living Units ‐ Sean McNelis


But it requires considerable skill to arrive as a solution which can maximise the number of units. On

the one hand, there are strategies which reduce the available stock ‐ and for those really committed

these are the options of last resort:

∞ increase the level of resident contributions

∞ demolish stock and rebuild for an upmarket target group while retaining some units for

main target group

∞ sell stock to pay for the upgrade, reconfiguration and redevelopment of stock or the

acquisition of new stock

∞ enter into a joint venture with a private sector partner.

All these options mean reduced stock for our main target group. So what strategies will maximise

this stock? There are three that together can offer some hope.

First, borrow funds, particularly for upgrading units. If you are not charging at least $100 per week

for a unit and so maximising Commonwealth Rent Assistance, then your rents are too low. If you

are charging this amount, then you can support some borrowings ‐ I would estimate around $20,000

per unit.

Second, capitalise Commonwealth Rent Assistance - I understand that the community housing

sector is seeking to get Commonwealth Rent Assistance paid as an upfront lump sum payment that

can be used as capital.

Third, enter into a joint venture with a social investor, particularly the Office of Housing. Already

some ILU organisations have gained funds through the Social Housing Initiatives Program,

commonly known as SHIP. But generally, the Office of Housing and the Victorian Government is

still unconvinced about the importance of the ILU sector ‐ I’m not even sure that the sector has

done the ground work to put a good case to them yet.

5.7 Management

Most ILU organisations are very small managing less than 50 ILUs. For various reasons, some are

struggling to manage, struggling to respond to new demands from new legislation and a new

management culture. Having now been operating for more than 20 years, most of these

organisations are moving into a new management phase ‐ a third phase.

In the first phase, they established themselves as organisations and found the resources to construct

their units. In the second phase, they consolidated their organisation and its administrative systems

and, managed a stable and cohesive group of older persons as well as a housing stock in a good

state of repair. The third phase is a phase of renewal where the organisation must forge a new role

in a new environment. They must confront the challenges of renewing their stock and strategically

planning their future. They need new skills to confront an array of complex issues.

All this raises some serious issues about the future of ILU organisations. Each ILU organisation

needs to assess whether it can continue to manage housing in the way it has in the past. Could their

housing be better managed by handing it over to another organisation - either handing over just the

management or both the ownership and the management? Could it be better managed if two or more

organisations amalgamated? Could a number of organisations pool their resources and employ

people with the skills for this third management phase of strategic planning? Could they collectively

establish an asset management organisation with the particular skills they require?

Finally, on a different note, would it be simpler if ILU organisations made the difficult transition

from operating under the Retirement Villages Act to operating under the Residential Tenancies


The Future of Aged Persons Housing: What role for Independent Living Units ‐ Sean McNelis


5.8 Linkages with community care and other support services

The traditional view of “independence” has changed dramatically in the past couple of decades as

more older people seek to age-in-place. Yes, they need community care and other support services.

But what is the role of ILU organisations in providing support, in providing community care, in

providing other support services? It is important that you are clear about your role whether you:

(1) leave the issue of support and care to the residents themselves

(2) provide low-level monitoring of residents

(3) refer residents to services as and when needed

(4) advocate for and broker services for residents

(5) directly provide services for their residents.

Many ILU organisations have opted for the last option and directly provide community care and

other services. This option may provide them with better direct control over where services go and

it does solve some short term problems. Personally, I’m not convinced that this is the best option. I

take the European view, most prominent in the Netherlands, Denmark and Sweden, that, where

possible, we should separate the delivery of housing and the delivery of support services. By so

doing, ILU organisations avoid conflict of interest between maintaining residency and providing

support to the resident. It avoids whole-of-life arrangements. It allows for mutual accountability

between support services and housing managers.

5.9 Ongoing development of the ILU sector

My final topic is the ongoing development of the ILU sector. Let’s be positive here. I’m not just

looking to its survival but rather its ongoing development. So far all of the previous issues ‐ target

group, housing stock, finding capital, management, linkages with support services ‐ are issues for

each ILU organisation. Big issues! But we just cannot expect each ILU organisation to deal with

such large issues ‐ they have neither the skills nor the capacity nor the clout to do so. (Of course

some of the larger organisations could it.) So this raises a deeper issue.

We are getting here to the heart of the matter. One of things that has struck me is that most ILU

organisations are isolated from one another. They have little contact with one another, they have

little contact with peak organisations. Within many larger organisations, ILU managers are on the

outer because ILUs are just not a priority of the organisation. Politically they are marginalised. The

Commonwealth Government just doesn’t want to know about ILUs and their problems ‐ they are

only interested in residential aged care and community care. The State Government likewise. ILUs

just don’t have a political profile.

If there is going to be a future for ILUs then it has to be a future built around collaboration between

ILU organisations. This brings us to the very sensitive question of: who is going to take a leadership


If ILU organisations are to continue developing, then they need to develop a supportive

infrastructure or tap into existing infrastructure which will facilitate collaboration among ILUs

organisations, between ILU organisations and peak bodies, between ILU organisations and

Commonwealth and State Governments.

A peak organisation plays an important role as:

∞ A meeting place for organisations to share experiences, solutions and strategies;

∞ A provider and facilitator of education and training for volunteers and paid staff to build

their knowledge, competence and skills particularly in tenancy management and asset


The Future of Aged Persons Housing: What role for Independent Living Units ‐ Sean McNelis


∞ A facilitator of accreditation and codes of practices which assures both residents and other

interested parties that the organisation is delivering quality services, and

∞ A provider of policy and systems development which can be shared across organisations, a

development which builds upon the cumulative experience and creative innovations of

these organisations.

Such leadership for the sector, it seems to me, could come from one of three sources:

∞ Retirement Village Association (RVA)

∞ VAHEC, or

∞ Community Housing Federation of Victoria

As ILU managers, this is your question and you have to find your own answer. But let me briefly or

not so briefly comment on each of these.

It seems to me that the Retirement Village Association is primarily interested in the leading edge of

retirement villages, i.e. commercial retirement villages targeted at higher income older people ‐

those who can make lifestyle choices. I’m not sure how small not-for-profit organisations with their

particular target group and struggling in the third phase of management etc. can fit into the ethos of

the RVA.

The second option is the aged care peak, VAHEC. Many ILU organisations are not members of

VAHEC. Those that are members are members because they also run Residential Aged Care. To

date, the key focus of VAHEC has been Residential Aged Care and community care. While the

issue of ILUs has been around for many years, little has happened.

And let me recall again, the Salvation Army announcement in February. It received some

prominence particularly in relation to the sale of residential care facilities ‐ hostels and nursing

homes. What received little attention was the sale of around 700 ILUs even though these units

constituted 10% of the current ILU stock. The question for both ILU organisations and for VAHEC

is whether ILUs will feature as a priority and whether you want VAHEC to play a leadership role

and what sort of a role this will be. I’ll return to this point a little later.

So I turn to the third option ‐ the Community Housing Federation of Victoria. Already some ILU

organisations are members but this organisation may not be familiar to you.

ILU organisations and Community Housing Organisations have many things in common. As I

undertook my research last year, I was struck by the parallels between ILU organisations and

Community Housing Organisations. What ILU organisations did in the 1950s and 1960s ‐ seeking

local solutions to housing problems; gathering energy and enthusiasm and concern; garnering the

support of local communities, local government and local politicians; cobbling together the

necessary funds; pulling people into Committees ‐ Community Housing Organisations (housing co-

operatives and housing associations) did in the 1980s.

ILU organisations and Community Housing Organisations are both:

∞ not-for-profit community organisations

∞ primarily target households with relatively low incomes and low assets

∞ have a primary goal of providing good outcomes for residents

∞ provide supportive management and supportive environments for residents, and

∞ support residents by linking them in with a range of other organisations providing other

community and support services.

The Future of Aged Persons Housing: What role for Independent Living Units ‐ Sean McNelis


There is one difference - while Community Housing Organisations provide housing solely on a

rental basis as do some ILU organisations, most ILU organisations operate under the Retirement

Villages Act.

But I want you to note that I draw the parallel with Community Housing Organisations for two

important reasons: CHOs have active peak organisations both nationally and in Victoria; but more

importantly it is here that Commonwealth and State governments are actively investing

infrastructure resources to support the development of these organisations.

The Community Housing Federation of Victoria already facilitates meetings around particular sub-

sectors such as Rooming House Groups, Housing Co-operatives and Transitional Housing

Managers. With a joint approach from ILU organisations, it could form an ILU sector.

These peaks groups, with support from Commonwealth and State Governments, are developing

infrastructure resources such as accreditation within a quality improvement framework rather than a

rigid standards framework; they are developing education and training programs for housing

workers both Certificate IV programs and post-graduate certificates such as that at Swinburne

Institute for Social Research. These peak groups provide a base for meeting, for sharing experiences

and for advocacy.

So I would urge you to find out more about these resources, to tap into them. One role that VAHEC

could play is facilitating the connections with the community housing sector in order that ILU

organisations could access these resources.

(6) Concluding comments

I have already referred the AHURI papers on ILUs ‐ the website for these papers is listed below.

In my mind, these reports are but a starting point ‐ a basis on which the ILU sector can build its

case for resources, can point to its importance. There is still a bigger task to be done ‐ one which

can only be done on a State-by-State basis. This bigger task involves not only some further research

but, more importantly, it involves a process of engagement with ILU organisations. Some ILU

organisations relate to VAHEC ‐ but there are many ILU organisations throughout Victoria which

have no contact with either VAHEC or the Community Housing Federation of Victoria. This

process of engagement has to be one which involves each ILU organisation in planning their future

direction. I don’t believe there is just one solution ‐ it will depend upon the housing stock and its

location, their current residents, the strength of their organisation, the local opportunities. But it also

involves ILU organisations being accountable for their mission to providing housing for older

persons, a mission which they should not walk away from easily. To do this I would urge you to

make your case collectively with Commonwealth and State Governments and to seek some funds to

pursue the renewal of the ILU sector and its ongoing development.

My appeal is not for each of you or each organisation to begin work but for you to begin work

collaboratively. To return to the context outlined at the beginning - we have an emerging housing

crisis for older people with low incomes and low assets. I noted three dimensions of this crisis:

∞ older renters themselves and housing as symbol of their independence, their link with their

personal history and identity; older renters and the personal crises they face; older renters

and the opportunities they seek for better living;

∞ ourselves; our willingness to dream of better futures for older people; our willingness to

move beyond the narrow horizons of ourselves and our own organisations to meet the

pressing emerging issue of a housing crisis among older renters; and, our willingness to

collaborate with other organisations in developing more adequate responses to this crisis;


The Future of Aged Persons Housing: What role for Independent Living Units ‐ Sean McNelis


∞ the inadequacy of our current collective response to older renters;

Housing and community services for older people is the main game, not Residential Aged Care. It is

only through collaboration ‐ by ILU organisations working with other ILU organisations, by ILU

organisations seeking out isolated ILU organisations and working with them, by ILU organisations

working with peak bodies, by ILU organisations working with Commonwealth and State

Governments that we will retain the much needed resources already within the sector and, I would

hope, provide a stronger sector which can expand and grow.

So I leave you with some pointed and pointing questions. Where does your organisation stand?

Does it see the importance of ILUs to the future of housing for older persons? Are you committed to

independent housing older persons or, is your organisation only interested in the side-game ‐

residential aged care? In considering your future, are you taking the larger view ‐ the emerging

crisis among older renters? What role can you play in responding to this need? What role can you

play in a collaborative process of renewal within the ILU sector? What role can VAHEC play? Who

do you make your strategic alliances with? What case can you put to Commonwealth and State

Governments to get the initial funds to begin the process of renewal?

(7) Resources

7.1 Website for papers on ILUs

Housing Futures in an Ageing Australia Conference

A short summary paper from AHURI-Myer Foundation “Housing Futures in an Ageing Australia

Conference” can be found on the website of the Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute


ILU papers

Two longer papers along with an Appendix which contains extensive data on ILUs in Australia can

also be found on the AHURI website at:


Go to the AHURI home page at: and search on “mcnelis” for all these papers.

7.2 Other resources

Community Housing Federation of Victoria (CHFV)

The purpose of the CHFV is to determine, represent and further the common interests of community

housing organisations which provide assistance to those in need, and to support the growth of a

viable, independent and professional community housing sector.

PO Box 2132

Footscray VIC 3011

Ph: 03 9687 2933

Fx: 03 9362 0911


About the National Community Housing Standards and Accreditation Framework

The Future of Aged Persons Housing: What role for Independent Living Units ‐ Sean McNelis


National Community Housing Standards

National Community Housing Forum

Swinburne Graduate Courses on Housing Management and Policy

Community Housing Federation of Australia

Australasian Housing Information Network

CHIRS - Community Housing Information and Reference Services ‐ What’s going in


(8) Contact information

Sean McNelis

Institute for Social Research

Swinburne University of Technology

16 Wakefield Street or PO Box 218

Hawthorn Victoria 3122

Phone: 03 9214 8887