Victoria is being urged to develop a statewide homeshare framework that would match people with spare rooms to people seeking affordable accommodation, as advocates point to an estimated 1.7 million unused bedrooms across the state.

The Homeshare Australia and New Zealand Alliance, known as HANZA, has prepared a draft framework and budget proposal aimed at advancing Recommendation 30 of the Victorian Parliament’s inquiry into the supply of homes in regional Victoria.

The parliamentary inquiry, tabled in November 2025, recommended that the Victorian Government consider a statewide framework and regional pilot programs for homeshare. The government’s response, released in June 2026, said the recommendation was under review while officials considered issues including governance, safeguarding, tenancy arrangements and coordinated implementation.

That means Victoria has not adopted a statewide homeshare program at this stage. The 1.7 million spare-bedroom figure is an estimate advanced by HANZA using Census-based analysis, not a government count of rooms that are immediately available for rent.

The distinction matters because a spare bedroom is not automatically usable housing. Some rooms are occupied intermittently by family, used for caring responsibilities, needed for disability-related reasons, kept for visitors or simply unavailable because the homeowner does not want to share their home.

HANZA’s argument is that even a small proportion of the state’s unused bedroom capacity could provide additional housing options if there were a safe and structured system for matching householders and homesharers.

Homeshare differs from a conventional room rental. Under established models, a householder with a spare room is matched with another person who needs accommodation. In many programs, the arrangement includes some combination of companionship, agreed practical help or a modest financial contribution, with a third-party organisation supporting screening, matching and dispute resolution.

The model has often been associated with older householders who want company or limited assistance while remaining in their own homes, and younger people or key workers who need lower-cost accommodation. Advocates also say it may help some older women facing housing insecurity and people in regional areas where rental supply is particularly tight.

The Victorian parliamentary inquiry examined regional housing pressures including limited rental supply, affordability problems, population growth and difficulties building enough new homes quickly. HANZA told the inquiry that regional Victoria alone could have about 975,000 spare bedrooms, based on its analysis of 2021 Census data.

The committee ultimately recognised homeshare as one option worth further examination rather than presenting it as a substitute for new housing construction. That is an important boundary around the proposal.

Victoria’s housing shortage involves multiple problems: the number of homes available, the location and type of those homes, rental affordability, social housing demand and the ability of workers to live near jobs. A homeshare program could potentially make better use of some existing dwellings, but it would not create new housing stock and could not meet every type of housing need.

HANZA has framed its proposal in similar terms, arguing that Victoria needs both new construction and better use of homes that already exist. Its draft framework is intended to address practical questions that arise when strangers share a private home through a supported program.

Safeguarding is one of the central issues. A formal program would need processes for identity checks, suitability assessment, matching, expectations about household tasks, privacy, personal safety and what happens if an arrangement breaks down.

Those issues become particularly important where one participant is older, has a disability or is otherwise vulnerable. A poorly designed scheme could expose householders or homesharers to financial, personal or safety risks, which is why advocates are calling for professionally supported arrangements rather than simply encouraging people to advertise spare rooms informally.

Tenancy law is another unresolved area. Homeshare arrangements do not always fit neatly into conventional landlord-and-tenant categories, particularly where accommodation is exchanged partly for companionship or agreed support rather than standard market rent.

The Victorian Government’s decision to keep Recommendation 30 under review reflects those complexities. Officials are considering how a program would interact with existing laws and services, what organisation would oversee it and how consistent standards could be maintained across metropolitan and regional communities.

A statewide framework could also need to define the limits of support expected from a homesharer. Homeshare is generally not intended to replace professional aged care, disability support or health services. Tasks might include companionship, shopping, light household assistance or simply being present in the home, but arrangements need clear boundaries so participants are not placed in roles for which they are unqualified.

For people seeking housing, the attraction is affordability and access. Regional employers and community organisations have repeatedly reported difficulty attracting workers when local rental markets are tight. A supported homeshare arrangement could create an additional option for some teachers, health workers, students, hospitality staff or other people who need a room rather than an entire dwelling.

For householders, the potential benefits can include companionship, practical help, a sense of security and a contribution towards household costs. Those benefits are not universal, and many people will prefer not to share their homes, but advocates say the model should at least be available as a structured choice.

The broader housing policy question is whether government should invest in the infrastructure needed to make such arrangements safe and scalable. A pilot program would allow the state to test demand, screening procedures, legal settings and the cost of professional coordination before deciding whether to expand the model.

Regional pilots could be particularly useful because housing markets differ substantially across Victoria. A program that works in a university town may need different matching criteria from one aimed at health workers in a smaller regional centre or older householders in an area with limited services.

The 1.7 million figure also requires careful interpretation. It is designed to show the scale of underused space in the existing housing system, not to suggest that 1.7 million people could immediately be housed. The number of rooms that could realistically enter a homeshare program would be far smaller and would depend on homeowner interest, suitability and local support capacity.

Even so, a small participation rate could produce meaningful numbers. If only a fraction of suitable households chose to participate, advocates argue the resulting rooms could complement new housing, social housing and private rental supply rather than compete with them.

Critics or cautious policymakers may question whether the administrative cost of screening and ongoing support is justified by the number of matches achieved. They may also point to privacy, insurance, tax, tenancy and safeguarding questions that are easier to manage in a pilot than in a rapid statewide rollout.

Supporters respond that those are precisely the reasons for a formal framework. Without clear rules and professional facilitation, people may attempt informal arrangements with fewer protections. A structured system could make responsibilities more transparent and provide a pathway for resolving problems.

The debate comes as Victoria continues to pursue larger housing supply measures, including planning changes and social and affordable housing programs. Homeshare sits at the smaller end of that policy spectrum: it is not a construction program, but an attempt to unlock some of the capacity already sitting inside existing homes.

The next step will depend on the Victorian Government’s review of Recommendation 30. No statewide scheme has been announced, and key questions about funding, legal status, governance and safeguarding remain open.

HANZA is continuing to advocate for the draft framework and regional pilots. The government, meanwhile, has acknowledged the proposal as part of the regional housing inquiry response without committing to implementation.

For Victorians struggling to find affordable accommodation, homeshare will only matter if it moves from an advocacy proposal to a program that can be used safely in practice. The policy question now is whether the state believes the potential value of underused bedrooms is large enough to justify building the system needed to connect them with people who need a place to live.

There is also a demographic dimension to the proposal. Australia’s ageing population means more people are living alone in larger homes after children move out or a partner dies. At the same time, younger renters and lower-income workers can face difficulty securing even modest accommodation. Homeshare attempts to connect those two circumstances without requiring either participant to enter a conventional commercial share house.

That connection can sound simple, but successful programs depend on compatibility. A person who wants a quiet household, for example, may not be suited to someone who works late shifts. Expectations about guests, pets, cooking, parking, cleaning and time spent together can become significant once people share a home. Support organisations therefore emphasise careful matching and written agreements rather than treating a spare room as the only relevant factor.

Privacy will be another test for any Victorian model. Householders need confidence that opening their home will not undermine their security or control over personal space, while homesharers need certainty that their accommodation is stable and that they will be treated with dignity. Clear exit processes are particularly important so that either side can end an arrangement without creating an unsafe or legally confusing situation.

Those practical details explain why the proposal is moving through policy review rather than being presented as an instant answer to the housing shortage. The value of a pilot would be to generate Victorian evidence about who participates, how long matches last, what support is required and whether the model produces housing outcomes at a reasonable cost.