Michael Fotheringham: “There are many things we can share between both countries”

Michael Fotheringham is the Managing Director of the Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute (AHURI). He is responsible for setting the national housing research agenda and maintaining an internationally renowned policy research evidence base on housing, homelessness, and urban issues. He is a member of the National Shelter Council and participates in several expert advisory groups. He provides specialist advice to Commonwealth and Australian state ministers, as well as internationally.

The Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute is responsible for researching and reporting on housing and urban policy. What are the current housing problems in Australia?

Housing is the main problem we currently face in Australia. It is a lack of supply, and particularly of affordable supply. We are not able to build enough homes to meet demand. We have population growth across the country and population movements within it, and we are simply not building fast enough.

Part of the problem is that natural disasters (floods, fires, etc.) have damaged many properties. As a result, we spend a lot of time rebuilding rather than constructing new properties. But we do not have the supply chains or the workforce needed to keep up with demand. So we have to find different ways to build housing more efficiently and quickly, but also more energy-efficiently. Our housing stock performs poorly in terms of energy efficiency, especially compared with some of the examples we have seen here in Spain this week. There is therefore a kind of double challenge: improving the pace at which we build housing, while also improving its quality and sustainability, which is a real challenge across the country.

Another major challenge for our cities is connectivity: physical connectivity in terms of public transport and transport between cities. We do not have high-speed trains, and travelling between our cities is expensive. We have a relatively small number of cities, but the transport system connecting them is not efficient.

We also have a lot to do to improve digital connectivity. I think these are the main challenges, and many of the things we have seen this week have shown ways in which we could address them more effectively.

During this trip, have you noticed differences between the problems faced by both countries?

I think we share many of the challenges in general terms, although some specific issues are quite different. One of the things I was curious to compare was how apartment buildings function, where each person owns an apartment and then the group of owners decides about the building as a whole. So when repairs or works are needed, everyone has to agree, which often means that nothing ends up being done. It seems that this happens here as well...

The best innovations around sustainability—circular economy approaches, net-zero and positive-energy buildings—are things we need to look at as examples. And I think connectivity between cities is a major difference.

One of the things that has impressed me most is the level of coordination between the different levels of government: having municipal governments that clearly understand what regional governments do and what the national government does. There is also a clear understanding of the priorities of the European Union and how they are transmitted through the different levels of government. That is a level of coordination that we do not have. We have local governments that are not necessarily aligned with state governments or the federal government, and they do not always work together. This is something we have been working on over the last two years, particularly in the housing sector, but we still have a long way to go. And this trip has been a good way to see how it might be done.

Are there ways to encourage collaboration between companies and institutions in both countries?

I think one of the things I will take away from this week is the connections with similar organizations. They are not exactly the same as AHURI, but they perform some similar functions. Among them are organizations we heard about through the College of Architects and ISGlobal, as well as others that play a similar intermediary role between governments and community and industry sectors.

I believe there are things we can share with one another, more than we have done so far. It is something I have been interested in doing with other countries such as Canada and the United Kingdom, with which we have already started. And I think there is also a real opportunity to strengthen that relationship with Spain.

In this regard, are initiatives such as the Leaders Program useful?

Absolutely. I think the connections that are created and the dialogue that is generated are extremely important. It is clear that both countries are strongly committed to economic activities and businesses that operate beyond their borders. But increasing dialogue is a very important way of achieving that. I think this Program is an excellent way to make it happen.

Which activities or meetings have been your favorites?

There have been many. A couple of them really stood out to me and resonated with the same kinds of issues we have been working on. Ángela Baldellou, who spoke at the College of Architects about the Observatory 2030 of the Higher Council of the Associations of Architects of Spain—I will stay in contact with her to talk more about what they do, because it is very similar to many of the things we do.

In fact, I think we could work together. I noticed that on the global data map they have, there was a gap for Australia. We actually have that data, so we have an opportunity to share what we are doing and coordinate better. I think these kinds of opportunities are very important, and they do not arise naturally. Someone has to trigger them, and the Leaders Program is a great way to do so.

VView the Executive Summary in PDF