Collective stewardship stream

Purpose

The Collective Stewardship (CS) stream is intended to prefigure a world where everyone has secure access to housing for their entire life, has the agency needed to shape it into a good home, and can make contributions to it that are affordable for their current situation.

Participation in the CS stream does not require up-front investment, or capital of any sort. Functionally, housing under the CS stream is essentially rent, but it differs so markedly from the experience of Australian renters that its differences need to be called out, both in terms of lower and more flexible contributions (rent), and much greater lifetime security and agency. In order to achieve the comparatively radical benefits of this stream, some of the collective’s housing must be owned debt-free, to avoid the distorting influence of mortgage payments.

By removing financial and legal requirements to privilege individual ownership, this stream allows housing collectives to thoughtfully design their governance processes in ways that balance provision of shelter with stewardship of land. Good collective stewardship of the land is important, but in most cases this is also a transitional stage. To co-exist with these lands long-term we need that stewardship to be led by the knowledge of living on Country that First Nations peoples have fostered over a period of at least 80,000 years (which is the intention of prioritising Land Back practices outlined later).

This stream also allows a distinction between stewarding the houses for use by participants in a collective with the stewardship of land for the well-being of the broader community and environment. This distinction is one way for the collective to return governance of land to First Nations custodianship to ensure that communities who are the custodians of those lands are able to care for that Country without needing to navigate the typical constraints of ownership systems. This approach may then be built upon as part of broader Land Back processes.

Regular financial contribution

The regular monthly contribution under the CS stream is an agreed contribution amount (functionally, like rent). This contribution is set under the governance of the CS stream, which typically sets a systematic way for determining contribution amount and then applies it to individuals. As property managed under the CS stream is owned debt-free by the collective, the system for determining contribution only needs to add up to an amount that covers maintenance, rates, insurance and other ongoing costs, which allows it to be set well below market rental rates.

The governance body of the CS stream may have enshrined targets for affordability of contributions, but for the purposes of explaining the stream, let’s start with the assumption that on average it is much cheaper than normal rent. For example it might average 50% of the median rent in the suburb for the same housing provision (e.g., a room in a share-house) or it may be calculated as 15% of a person’s income. Additionally, the system should have provision for being even lower during periods when even that reduced contribution would be too much. For example, illness, unemployment, and perhaps retirement.

This stream should look favourable in comparison to home-ownership, at least in the eyes of values aligned individuals. If the entire house was managed according to this stream, your living situation should be radically affordable throughout your entire life, including periods of difficulty.

Affordability metric

The collective should choose an affordability metric for the CS stream that feels life-changingly affordable compared to the regular rental market, and it should probably be exclusively based on means, allowing it to drop to zero in the case of retirement or inability to earn money.

The recommended baseline formula is 15% of gross income.

Changing financial circumstances

The collective has the freedom to experiment with different systems for apportioning financial contributions, and given its lack of debt, it should have a lot of room to accommodate different financial needs. In particular, it’s important that this stream provides viable lifetime shelter security for everyone in the collective, taking into account changing financial circumstances.

The simplest system for apportioning contributions that takes this into account is to base a large part of the contribution on current income. If someone’s income is reduced, for whatever reason, their contributions do too. This avoids stigmatising any particular reason for income reduction. It works best in a high trust environment, which is why this stream is used by small collectives who build trust together.

As owning a house outright has long been touted as a key part of the solution for self-funded retirement in Australia, this is an important financial change to consider. To reflect this, the CS stream is designed to accommodate retirement by dropping monthly contributions right down (perhaps to zero) for those who no longer earn.

Shelter provision

The financial aspect of shelter security is stronger under the CS stream than the TE stream, as it should not be possible to find the contributions unaffordable.

Land back

The mechanisms through which the collective returns land to the First Nations peoples who are best positioned to care for it will depend on the degree of participation by Indigenous participants in the Collective Stewardship governance practices already, and advice from Elders from the broader Indigenous community, and relevant processes generated by the Land Back movement.

In the meantime, the process may be gradual. For instance, as a minimum, the Stewardship Collective should set up an Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Land Management Agreement or equivalent to ensure the land is protected and managed appropriately, and be contributing to a Pay the Rent fund. If the governing body of the CS stream does not include a majority of Indigenous peoples, the Collective should follow the guidance of people within the Indigenous community on decisions about land management. Additionally, if recognition of land titles under colonial law would better support Indigenous custodianship of the collectively stewarded land then there may need to be a process for transferring ownership (along with governance) to a different legal entity that can provide long-term Indigenous governance of both land and housing.

Considerations and open questions

What are the time-frames and criteria used to determine when the Collective will invite Indigenous-led governance of any aspect of their governance and/or ownership practices? (e.g., to what degree can we do this before we’ve paid off the bank loans:)

How do the Collective Stewardship participants invite Indigenous-led governance of land (and what are the associated legal/financial rights and responsibilities) without being extractive about it?

• At what point is it most appropriate to book a consultation with the Wurundjeri Council to review our project?
• Are there any existing processes for transferring the legal, financial, and/or governance rights and responsibilities for land to Indigenous communities within the broader Land Back movement? When implementing this model, what is the process for engaging with the relevant Indigenous community (e.g. The Wurundjeri Land Council has a consultation process, is this the most appropriate pathway for collectives living within Merri-bek council) without being extractive in our expectations?
• If the Collective Stewardship stream governs at the multi-house collective level about decisions that impact the value of the property (but not all property-level and house-level decisions), we would need to consider how transferring this level of governance to an Indigenous organisation (vs. ensuring Indigenous people were involved in the Collective) would impact governance at the property-level and house-level as well.
• Would transition to Indigenous governance involve making housing available through existing Indigenous social-housing organisations, such as AHV, or should the goal be to provide additional pathways for Indigenous governance of land?
• Would including transfer of ownership of land titles under colonial law be useful or an unwanted burden to the Indigenous custodians of that land?