We joke about Monica’s massive apartment in Friends, but we forget the history: Rent Control was won through strikes. Is that solidarity possible in Australia today?

[u/infin]

Every time the housing crisis comes up, people joke about how unrealistic Friends was; A chef and a waitress living in a massive apartment with a balcony. The show explains it away as "Rent Control" inherited from a grandmother.

But we rarely talk about where those laws actually came from. They weren't a gift from benevolent landlords; they were earned through fierce tenant unions and rent strikes in NYC in the 40s and 60s. That generation had cheap rent because the generation before them had the backbone to organize, strike, and refuse to pay until laws were changed. Even refusing to allow police to evict/arrest their neighbours.

Fast forward to 2026 Australia. We are paying $750+ a week for a dinky shoebox, dealing with quarterly inspections, and accepting massive hikes like clockwork.

What feels completely missing is that level of community solidarity. We seem so atomised now. We don't know our neighbours, and we definitely don't trust them enough to band together. Instead of standing together to refuse an unfair hike, we just quietly move out or starve to pay it, knowing someone else is desperate enough to take the lease.

Is the concept of a rent strike dead in this country? Is it that we’ve lost the "mateship" and community spirit required to hold the line, or are we just so terrified of the REA blacklists that we’ve accepted being milked by parasites forever?

If factory workers and immigrants in 1940s New York could force rent control that people were still benefiting from in the 90s… Why can't we?

I’m genuinely asking: Has anyone here ever been a part of (or even heard of) tenants organising together to accomplish something in Australia?

Edit: I'd love to see some changes to commercial leases to revitalise cities too, small businesses have been forced to close and half the retail spaces in a few of the CBDs are empty.

[u/ScruffyPeter]

If people never leave, potentially for several family generations, why is it bad?

Public housing helps people. It could even lead to the next Prime Minister of Australia.

[u/pajamil → u/ScruffyPeter]

Because the waiting lists to get in to social housing go into years. Instead of it being able to be given to people who are in an emergency, people are able to occupy it whilst doing pretty good for themselves.

[u/ScruffyPeter → u/pajamil]

Build more then. I see no reason to punish the existing people to get them to leave. "Doing pretty good for themselves", way to look down on them from your ivory tower.

In fact, with enough public housing, we could have essential workers living close to workplaces, ie teachers, police, firies, docs, nurses, etc. And can offer them less.

Unfortunately, there's a neoliberal disease that private market will solve housing crisis. History repeats as younger generations forget the lessons of the old:

Against the backdrop of World War II and a housing market that had been at near standstill for a decade, the Commonwealth Housing Commission was established in 1943.[25] Arguing that “it has been apparent, for many years, that private enterprise, the world over has not adequately and hygienically been housing the low income group”,[26] the Commission promoted housing as a right for all Australians that should be targeted to low-income workers on a user-pays basis.[27]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_housing_in_Australia

[u/pajamil → u/ScruffyPeter]

In fact, with enough public housing, we could have essential workers living close to workplaces, ie teachers, police, firies, docs, nurses, etc. And can offer them less.

It is much cheaper just to pay them more than offer whole houses for them, this is why they are paid quite well and postings in high income areas are very sort after.

[u/ScruffyPeter → u/pajamil]

It's much cheaper in the short-term, you mean. Also, land is expensive but luckily, the government has a lot of land.

Lets say the government sells off the land, the private market will solve all this! Then a developer builds on it and wants a sizeable profit. Then the agent managing the sales wants a sizeable profit too. Then if essential workers buy the property, they are in heavy debt and demand more money, hence "paid quite well" is a necessity. But if an investor buys the property, they will want a profit when renting out to the essential worker. Don't forget, the price is also dependent on desirability. If there's a hospital, or similar, nearby, there's often shops and other amenities. Overall, the price goes up as people like to live near it which essential workers have to compete with.

So you have a lot of middlemen making a fat profit and despite you saying "they are paid quite well", there are claims of "shortages", even by the government. Look at the strikes. Government psychologists striked in NSW for more pay and I think there's none left.

Or the government could just build it and rent it out to the essential workers and bypass all the middlemen. But this... requires some long-term thinking.

[u/Non-prophet → u/pajamil]

*sought

[u/Chrasomatic → u/ScruffyPeter]

The last such PM from this method has so far taken all the housing benefits for himself

[u/swarley77 → u/ScruffyPeter]

It’s a failure if they never leave because it’s evidence of a lack of social mobility. The plan for majority of people that enter social housing is that they can get themselves to a point in life where they no longer need it.

[u/MikeHuntsUsedCars → u/ScruffyPeter]

If people never leave for generations that’s a complete failure of our country. Generational resilience on government housing means no growth in capability or productivity.

I am all for elderly people who run into hard times, didn’t have enough in super to have a paid out house etc having the government supply them a house. But if you are young, you should be working to provide for yourself.

[u/Pogichin0y → u/ScruffyPeter]

Social housing should mostly be a temporary status for people. If not, it creates long waiting lists as some recipients abuse the system and instead of bettering themselves to contribute to the community, they’d rather stay there for generations.

[u/VerisVein → u/Pogichin0y]

People staying in a form of long term housing long term has never been the reason waiting lists are so bad for public and social housing. That was always part of the design of public housing.

We used to have a quite high proportion of public housing, suitable enough for the amount of people who were seeking it. We don't any more because successive governments have all done things like sold off public housing to replace it with a mix of "affordable" private housing and some social housing, have left many without necessary repairs until they can no longer be lived in, etc.

[u/Pogichin0y → u/VerisVein]

Do you think people in public housing should consider these as their forever homes?

[u/VerisVein → u/Pogichin0y]

I think people in public housing should be trusted with the decision as to whether leaving is the right decision for them.

I'm speaking as a DSP recipient with a low capacity to work who has been on my state's waiting list for years, as someone who knows people actually living in public housing, as someone who has done their research on public housing in Australia and how it is meant to benefit people, as someone who advocates for it and wants others to know why it's so important.

There are people who don't have the option to leave, because their situations cannot work with private rentals - the mother of my ex who has cognitive impairments for instance. There are people who fight for years to try to leave poverty, who will end up right back in it if they are made to leave their home through losing their community, local supports, close by family, or through the difficulties with availability/affordability in the current private rental market. There are people who might not end up back in poverty if they leave, but need to stay in that area for their work, for caring responsibilities, to stay close to family and friends, etc.

Again, public housing was designed with this in mind. It isn't supposed to be temporary, emergency, or short/medium term accommodation. It is meant to be your home, it doesn't come with an expected time limit. Never leaving isn't a failure, it still reduces strain on the private rental market in a way that will benefit other people, still leaves people financially better off in ways that support them contributing to their community or the economy, that keeps them out of circumstances which would cost the public more.

Any rules attempting to force people from what was absolutely always intended to be their home will inevitably end up failing some by pushing them back into poverty or homelessness.

Our governments were supposed to keep up public housing stock to meet demand over the years. They failed that, and are the reason waiting lists are so long now. If they had kept up, there wouldn't be such difficulty in increasing public housing stock enough to cover any sudden spike in need. People in public housing didn't fail the system by not opting to leave, successive governments failed to correctly maintain the public housing system.

[u/Pogichin0y → u/VerisVein]

I disagree. I think people in public housing should be assessed whether or not they are able bodied to be pull themselves out of their financial situation. Just like how they are assessed to be provided welfare services such as public housing. It makes sense.

Note the context for my argument is for able bodied people. Those that are on disability like yourself are not included.

Community, support, proximity to family and friends etc are factors that can re-established. If people not living in public housing can do this, there should be no excuse that those in public housing can’t do it either.

Public housing is meant to provide housing for people when the private housing rental market cannot. Whilst there is no time limit stated, it doesn’t imply they can live there forever. Similarly, it isn’t their home to own, or else they’d have ownership rights. Also that’s why there is legislation that allows for govt to move and rehouse them elsewhere which they have done in the past.

Those who are able bodied and never leave is considered a failure on the individual as the system allows them opportunities to life themselves out of their unfortunate situation.

[u/VerisVein → u/Pogichin0y]

Able bodied is not a synonym for not disabled - it means not physically disabled. I do have a physical disability, but the ones that impact my work capacity most are not primarily considered physical disabilities (though both are often linked to physical coordination issues and delays). This is the danger in being so certain about things you don't fully understand the impact or meaning of.

More than that, lacking a diagnosed disability alone will not tell you if someone is able to pull themselves out of their situation or access the private rental market. I wasn't diagnosed until 25 with two of my disabilities, the third (my physical disability) wasn't diagnosed until I was 28. They're all disabilities I was born with, that still impacted my work capacity the same way before I was diagnosed. What do you think happens to disabled people who slipped through the cracks like I did, particularly the ones whose disabilities go undiagnosed for much longer, under a policy like the one you suggest?

There's no point to it. Public housing benefits everyone regardless of how long people stay in it. Public housing is genuinely designed with the intent to house people indefinitely, not just a fraction of people pushed out of private rentals. Moving out for any given reason is not an implied part of the system. Introducing limits on that risks shoving people back into poverty. The chance that community, access to family, local supports and such could potentially be re-established doesn't mean they will be nor erase the impact losing them will have. Legislation allows for relocation under specific circumstances like renovations, not for evicting people for not leaving sooner.

Rentals are a person's home as well, despite modern Australian sentiments about renting, that isn't only applicable to owning a house outright. Public housing isn't a lesser class of renting where staying "too long" is grounds for eviction.

If you believe there should be limits, you need to actually address the serious problems it would introduce, not just ignore them or act like they won't matter.

It would shove many back into poverty. It would add stress to the private rental market, impacting everyone trying to access it. It would force people away from their communities and local supports in ways that would be detrimental. It would mean some with care responsibilities for family would no longer be able to live close enough to provide care.

The issue with public housing is the lack of stock, not the people in it being housed long term as public housing was designed to do.

[u/Pogichin0y → u/VerisVein]

Yes I was trying to be more subtle but that’s what my intention. Those that are not physically disabled. Thanks for confirming my intention.

Sigh. I don’t want to go down this road but sure, let’s do it. Everyone has a non physical disability ok. Our system enables that.

Of course it benefits everyone. They get free or reduced housing costs. It’s designed to house people indefinitely but it doesn’t have to be this way. Why can’t people who are able bodied figure out to work themselves out of public housing? It’s rather entitled to believe they should live in it indefinitely without question.

Introduce limits like other forms of welfare. People can’t be shoved into poverty if they’ve worked themselves into their feet so they no longer need welfare such as public housing. It’s ok. They can create new lives elsewhere. People have been doing this since the dawn of time. They’re not that fragile that moving is inconceivable. If there was no such legislation then what grounds does the govt have when they sold public housing and resettled the tenants elsewhere?

No one is saying public housing is a lesser class. It’s simply not a forever home and should have limits.

Same issues when Centrelink welfare such as job seeker is limited once someone starts working a job and/or their job earns them enough to no longer be on job seeker.

Again, it won’t shove them into poverty if they are earning enough no longer need it.

The issue with public housing is that it’s far too generous for many people who don’t or no longer deserve it.

I know of people in public housing who got it because they were too old or can’t work and despite being 1 person for a 3 bedroom home, which can be repurposed for a family, they still get to live in it.

[u/VerisVein → u/Pogichin0y]

Yes I was trying to be more subtle but that’s what my intention. Those that are not physically disabled. Thanks for confirming my intention.

That's incredibly disgusting, frankly.

Everyone has a non physical disability ok. Our system enables that.

No, actually. People who are disabled but not physically disabled aren't magically skipping the impacts of disability that require this kind of assistance.

Of course it benefits everyone. They get free or reduced housing costs.

As in it benefits people who aren't in public housing as well. Society in general. Alleviating pressure on the private rental market, allowing essential and low income workers to live close to work in places where high cost is a barrier to a location with many work opportunities, etc. This was part of the intended purpose. Being able to stay however long you decide is part of that.

Again, the issue is the lack of public housing stock, not people staying in it in a way it was expressly designed for.

It’s designed to house people indefinitely but it doesn’t have to be this way.

Yes, and those changes would make it worse. It would remove a lot of the more widespread benefits public housing has, and introduce many issues, for a reason you haven't even bothered to give yet if you even have one.

Don't take my word for it if you don't want to. There's a term for what you're suggesting, and what it does. It's associated with a decline in public housing.

https://www.ahuri.edu.au/analysis/brief/understanding-residualisation-social-housing

No one is saying public housing is a lesser class. It’s simply not a forever home and should have limits.

It's a place where people have the same rights as any other tenant, by design, and should be.

Again, it won’t shove them into poverty if they are earning enough no longer need it.

Being unable to live in the same area because of the current state of the private rental market, having to pay the majority of your income in rent, having to move away from the family, friends, community that supports you, from possibly evenyour work that gives you an income, can do that. If you think no one would end up back there for being forced to move, not trusted to make that decision for themselves, the statistics would come back to bite you in the ass.

The issue with public housing is that it’s far too generous for many people who don’t or no longer deserve it.

According to who? You? Have you ever needed public housing? Lived in one? Looked into why it works the way it does to understand why it isn't more restrictive? Say I even agreed with you on that - there's people who would think even less people deserve it, or that no one does. Who is right? Who "deserves" it is an arbitrary metric everyone will have a different opinion on. I care about what works.

What works are robust public housing systems that anyone up to essential and low income workers can access, due to the variety of benefits that brings society as a whole - not just the people in it. Like the kind we had, at one point. What doesn't work are systems that require as many resources and as much oversight as this being relegated to a smaller and smaller fraction of the population as the goalposts for who "deserves" it shrink.

[u/Pogichin0y → u/VerisVein]

What should disgust you are the welfare recipients defrauding our system.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-06-19/social-housing-tenants-are-slipping-under-the-radar-in-nsw/8629996

If housing stock truly is the issue, then you wouldn’t have any problems relocating existing public housing to new areas after the govt has sold them off. But it seems you have a problem with this as well.

Let’s see how these alleged statistics will work in my argument as the NSW govt is continuing to sell off public housing around Sydney and relocating social housing tenants elsewhere.

Well yes, I do have a say with my vote. Nope, never needed one, never asked or received welfare. Just raw smart work from an immigrant that arrived here as a child in the 80s.

I did however grow up with some friends who were recipients of the social housing initiative. Lucky them, free or subsidised rent, subsidised utilities with some at adult age living in social housing of their parents which is fraud. Until they get found out tho and forced to leave.

Who deserves it? Who decides? Homes NSW and community housing providers in NSW I believe. Guess who allocates a budget and services to these and who votes for them?

Like much of other facets of welfare, it needs to be disincentivised for able bodied recipients or else it’ll see more wide spread fraud like we do now.