FOPHV SUBMISSION TO THE "SOCIAL HOUSING REGULATION REVIEW"

In a world where Covid is hitting hard, the future is looking increasingly uncertain for all of us. As a society it is imperative that we hang on to our Public Housing system. We need to defend the Public Housing we have and build more to meet the demand. In a pandemic secure housing for everyone is a health issue for everyone. Do the right thing politicians. Don't tamper with Public Housing!

Below is our submission to the 'Social Housing Regulation Review'

Friends of Public Housing Victoria - FOPHV -is a grass roots activist group, made up of public tenants and all people who support the Public Housing system and want to see it retained and strengthened. We are not part of any Collective, but are a stand-alone independent organisation who have been advocating on behalf of Public Housing and public tenants for around 10 years. We receive no outside funding. We advocate on behalf of public tenants. FOPHV spokespersons are all long-term public tenants with the lived experience of Public Housing.

Independence of the Review

This review has been widely promoted by government as an Independent Review into the Regulation of Social Housing. Unfortunately we have serious concerns regarding this which we spoke of in our last submission to the Review. All panelist have strong connections, past and present with Community Housing Organisations and/or KPMG. These organisations are beneficiaries of current government policy.

Despite the $5.3 Billion Big Housing Build being promoted by the ALP and the media as a ‘Commitment to Public Housing’ it is nothing of the sort. Public Housing is the big loser in Labor’s 10 year strategy. No future growth at all is planned for Public Housing, no new publicly owned and managed properties will be built, and many Public Housing estates will be demolished and replaced with Community Housing and private units.

We hope that in spite of their connections with the Community Housing sector, all three panelists will nevertheless be fair and impartial in considering the arguments which we present in favour of the Public Housing system. Any recommendations about the regulations should be informed by an intention to protect Public Housing.

The Review’s Terms of Reference ask that the Panel to consider the degree that Social Housing tenants’ rights should be ‘harmonised’.

We disagree with the aim of unifying the regulatory systems of Public Housing and Community Housing as we believe that it is in principle mistaken as they are different types of organisations. We believe that Community Housing and Public Housing need to remain separate entities. Having said that, if the government nevertheless proceeds with unifying the regulations, it should be that Community Housing regulation be adjusted to apply within the norms protecting Public Housing tenants, rather than Public Housing rights being degraded.

This is of major concern to the Community Legal Services as well, who state in their previous submission to the Review: “Particularly crucial is that the comprehensive set of rights and policies applicable to people living in public housing are not undermined for the goal of harmonisation.”

Reading carefully the points to be considered by the review for this submission, it is apparent to us that all of the outcomes are more easily and naturally achieved by government and are indeed the government's responsibility. It is hard to see how fair and just social outcomes will be achieved with the competing interests of private businesses. The inherent tension between the need of the Housing Associations/providers to be financially viable and their social obligations, has been made over and over again by various organisations and individuals. It is also evidently the concern at the base of many of the Review's considerations as outlined in its consultation paper. It is time for the government to openly recognise and acknowledge this fact, and protect people’s right to Housing by ensuring that Public Housing and Community Housing organisations remain separate.

Behind the hype, spin and glossy PR of the Community Housing sector there are ‘clear and troubling trends’ reported by the Community lawyers when it comes to some very dubious Community Housing practices. The submission by the ‘Community Legal Services Joint Response’ to this Review is a truly damning indictment of some of the practices of Community Housing Organisations. Their submission details comprehensively how these flaws should be rectified.

Problems with Community Housing Organisations include cherry-picking prospective tenants, creeping rent rises, and the tendency of other services to be included in the rental calculations which can add up to around 50% of tenants’ income. They have also demonstrated an unwillingness to negotiate for better outcomes with the tenant, preferring costly and tiresome litigation. Performance and operational data are hidden due to Commercial-in-Confidence. Community Housing organisations have used Fixed Term Contracts which makes it easy to evict people, often into homelessness, without needing to supply a reason. The absence of any long-term rebates that will reduce rents if and when tenants’ circumstances change is another common problem. In the midst of an ongoing pandemic these practices are being allowed to continue. The Housing Registrar’s powers seem to lack the scope to intervene in many of the conflicts that arise.

FOPHV members have been present at two delegations with consecutive Victorian ALP Housing Ministers and raised some of these concerns regarding Community Housing with them. We also recounted sad stories of how the ‘relocation’ of Public Tenants, under the guise of ‘renewing Public Housing’ was having a deleterious impact on the lives of elderly public tenants and those with mental health problems. Being a grass roots organisation made up of public tenants and supporters we know about the issues facing our communities. We tried to convey to the Housing Ministers the human cost arising from their housing policies. Unfortunately it seemed clear to us that our concerns fell on deaf ears.

With the Community Housing Sector about to boom and bigger sophisticated players ready to move in, the problems already evident with Community Housing are likely to get worse. Even with the best intentions,and the political will to do so, the government will be at a disadvantage in trying to make these social outcomes stick.

These businesses will have their own legal specialists to protect their profits and find ways around any regulations that might hamper them. What they call ‘new and diverse’ models of housing, not limited to not-for-profits will be entering the expanding scene. This seems to be a revival of the ‘profit- plus’ corporation model which was raised years ago. Again the tension between social and financial goals within Community Housing Associations/Providers is inherently the problem here.

The Community Housing Sector has a very poor record when it comes to The Victorian Charter of Human Rights. They fought tooth and nail not to have the Charter applied to them in their submission to the Human Rights Review in 2015. In the absence of clear statute law, the extent to which Social Housing Providers are public authorities and subject to the Human Rights Charter remains unclear and can lead to litigation in the Supreme Court. Housing Associations are well equipped for such legal battles; strangely Community Housing tenants are not.

In contrast Public Housing has its Human Rights comprehensively embedded in its operation manual. We recommend the Government fully supports the principles of the Victorian Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities in the development of all its housing policies.

The Combined Waiting List and the running down of a public asset.

The VPTA is ‘very concerned by the shift away from publicly owned and managed housing stock and the ‘consequences of these decisions for future social housing renters’ and raises the risk that ‘two classes of social housing renters will emerge’.

As public tenants with many years’ experience of living in Public Housing, we can assure the panelists that this is already happening. The Combined Waiting List has been a disaster for Public Housing. It is basically an exercise in social engineering, since Community Housing Organisations can pick and choose who they house, often preferring those with higher incomes and fewer complex needs. There is no obligation for them to house the homeless. We have heard that Community Housing Organisations can access prospective tenants privately through their own channels, and then request that they put their name on the Combined Waiting List to satisfy government criteria. Meanwhile someone who has been waiting for housing for many years misses out in favour of somebody who has been on the list for two weeks! The Combined Waiting List has introduced systemic discrimination.

The Combined Waiting List puts an unfair burden on the Public Housing system. We have a proud tradition of housing people in need without judgement, but our communities function better when there is a diversity of tenants, some with complex needs and others who initially entered the public system simply due to low income. The Big Housing Build should reflect a commitment to genuine Public Housing by building more Public Housing. Public Housing should be a core government responsibility like public roads, schools and hospitals, rather then devolve into the housing of last resort. Our communities, in spite of unfair public denigration and stigmatisation, are still close-knit and very functional, but many tenants are finding living in Public Housing more challenging in the last 5 years since the Combined Waiting List was introduced.

We request that the panel bear this in mind when assessing public tenants’ survey responses to the Review. These public tenants have answered questions in good faith - how can the Public Housing system be improved? The government has given no indication that it genuinely wants to improve Public Housing. As evidenced by its 10 year strategy, the ALP seems intent on abrogating its responsibilities by trying to get out of being a direct landlord. It would be yet another betrayal of public tenants if their honest responses were later used to justify the collapsing of the public housing system into the growing Community Housing sector when all they really wanted is for the government to lift its game.

We believe the running down of our public housing assets to be politically motivated. Lack of adequate maintenance is demoralising for the tenants. The upkeep of the grounds has slipped alarmingly. Knowing the serious level of need and disadvantage that exists in Public Housing with many on disability or aged pensions, how can the government justify employing only 1 front-line worker for around 300 tenancies? This is blatant neglect. The government is creating the very problems it claims it wants to avoid, pockets of ghettoisation.

Public tenants wishing to transfer are being heavily pressured by Housing Workers to accept Community Housing homes over Public Housing. One public tenant told FOPHV that she was reprimanded by the Housing worker for being ‘very stubborn’, and that application forms for Community Housing would be sent to her in any case, even though she was clear she did not want to move into Community Housing. It is unconscionable that public servants are trying their hardest to push people out of the public system.

It would be a very simple measure to discontinue with the Combined Waiting List and return to separate waiting lists. We recommend that this be done.

We advocate for more staff and better skills training especially in the area of conflict resolution arising from complex needs. One housing worker for every three hundred tenancies cannot adequately support the Public Housing model and this should be addressed as a matter of urgency.

The aim of the government’s desire for a review to recommend a unified model for Community and Public Housing is quite possibly a prelude for absorbing Public Housing into Community Housing in future. The suggestion has made from time to time that Public Housing tenants be eligible for Commonwealth Rent Assistance (‘CRA’). There is no inherent reason to prefer CRA to the simple cap on rents of 25% of income as practised in public housing, quite the contrary. CRA is inherently less efficient requiring a greater burden of bureaucracy to implement especially as it involves the separate Commonwealth jurisdiction. There is no reason to extend the CRA to Public Housing, where it is manifestly unnecessary and bothersome.

We think the only rationale that makes sense for introducing CRA to public tenants and changing the much needed rebated rent model, would be as a stage of privatisation by facilitating future management and stock transfers. Such a course of action has been recommended by the Productivity Commission. Community Housing Organisations have often pushed for ‘management transfers’ and we know they are not interested in taking over Public Housing unless they have guaranteed access to an ongoing stream of CRA for each household.

The VPTA has also identified what they call a “threat” from the Community Housing sector, “which in some quarters, seeks to take over public housing stock.” The VPTA goes on to say that “all transfers of management of public housing to Community Housing providers should cease.”

Martin Foley, when he was Housing Minister indicated Labor’s intention to transfer management of Public Housing to Community Housing organisations, with the intention of transferring titles at a later date.

Public Housing rents capped at 25% of income is literally what keeps people off the street and provides them with much needed housing security. Removing this protection would be disastrous for tens of thousands of vulnerable Victorians.

We believe the panelists have a grave responsibility to ensure that recommendations of this Review do not serve to further the privatisation of Public Housing.

Fiona Ross, Jeremy Dixon, Eileen Artmann Spokespersons, Friends of Public Housing Victoria. 19.September 2021

MORE VOICES CHALLENGE THE ALP'S NEGLECT OF PUBLIC HOUSING.

Friends of Public Housing Victoria is genuinely non-party political. The future of Public Housing should be of concern to us all if we want to live in a just society and find a solution to the unacceptable plight of homelessness.

We will publish strong statements by politicians across the political spectrum that are in support of Public Housing.

Why has Labor and Minister Wynne allowed some of these essential public assets to fall into such disgraceful disrepair?

This serves to justify the bulldozing of public housing estates and their subsequent privatisation -housing and land- to private Community Housing aka Social Housing. The major 'Social Housing' Associations likely to win tenders are also property developers with million dollar portfolios.

Mr Clifford Hayes

Sustain Australia Party

Member of the Upper House -Legislative Council in Parliament

( August sitting 2021 )

"Last week I was invited by Dr Catherine Cumming to spend a few hours looking over the 750 or so houses owned by the state government in Braybrook.I thank Dr Cumming for the invitation to see these publicly owned homes and learn about the area.

I was quite shocked to see how many of these houses were either vacant or in a state of serious disrepair.

We came across many homes that were just boarded up, with overgrown gardens and dumped rubbish and some in what appeared to be terminal stages of neglect.

Now, everyone agrees we need more public housing and better public housing,and I am left wondering why the government is completely ignoring the potential to renovate or even rebuild these dilapidated properties to current-day standards and create more housing stock. It seems a no-brainer.

Given the scarcity of public housing, we should be using these valuable assets instead of selling them off to developers. This part of Braybrook is close to accessible transport and infrastructure.

I join Dr Cumming’s call to revitalise the area, repair these houses and re-use these vacant properties for their original purpose—low-cost public housing."

YARRA COUNCILLORS UNANIMOUS IN THEIR MESSAGE TO LABOR - BUILD PUBLIC HOUSING!

Friends of Public Housing Vic congratulates City of Yarra councillors for agreeing unanimously to a motion put forward by Greens councillor Amanda Stone in July.

The language of the motion was clear and unambiguous and addressed the state government’s plan to build ‘Social and Affordable Housing’ on a Public Housing estate in Wellington St Collingwood as part of its ‘Big Housing Build’ for Victoria.

Councillor Stone’s motion proposed that only genuine Public Housing be built and furthermore it should not replace the carpark which many existing public tenants and their families rely upon. The street parking is metered in the surrounding areas, which would make everyday life extraordinarily difficult and expensive for the public tenants on the Wellington estate if they were denied their carpark.

Please note that the wording of Councillor Stone’s motion is that ‘this new housing is and remains public housing’ ( our italics. )The Council here is clearly trying to block up a loophole that Labor has used in the past whereby the titles of publicly owned buildings are handed over to private Community Housing businesses at a later date.

Regarding the question of consultation, Labor’s Minister for Housing and Planning, Richard Wynne has said that “community consultation is an important part of master planning.”

However public tenant Brian Joss, who lives on the Wellington St public housing complex has stated that the government ‘has not properly communicated with residents’, going so far as to say that the public tenants are being treated like ‘dogs’. “They’re already starting to plan something without telling people what’s going on.”

Socialist councillor Stephen Jolly followed up by hosting a well-attended meeting. He said that the public tenants were “angry about issues on their estate: burnt out units, no recycling, and especially the concern that much needed new housing is inexplicably being built on their vital communal car park. They also want to know why it's social instead of public housing.” This meeting was also attended by Greens Councillor James Conlon.

It’s very important that elected politicians discuss with public tenants the differences between Public Housing and Community/Social Housing and explain to them the greater protections they have as Public Housing tenants. Public tenants have the right to be fully informed. Their future and the future of their families depends on it.

Councillor Stone has said, when discussing public tenants transferring to Community Housing, that they "do not always understand the implications of the different language used to describe different forms of housing and they experience a shock when moving from public to community housing for example." For many public tenants English is a second language which makes it even harder for them to get the information they need.

As Councillor Stone goes on to say, "When the need for housing is urgent, people may accept a place which does not best suit their needs. It can be very difficult to move again if a place is not successful."

Almost 10% of City of Yarra’s population live in Public Housing.This percentage is greater than anywhere else in Victoria.

Therefore it is very important that the Councillors at City of Yarra are keeping their terminology precise and accurate rather than using the ambiguous term 'Social Housing' -and that they are unanimously defending our Public Housing system.

Congratulations again to Councillor Stone and to all the Yarra Councillors.

More Background:

In late 2020, the Victorian Government announced its Big Housing Build, a $5.3 billion investment to build over 12,000 homes in four years. Of these, 9,300 will be ‘social housing’. The rest will be ‘affordable housing’ and private housing. So-called ‘affordable housing’ units can charge rents of up to 80% of the private market rents according to the suburb in which they are built.

The program will also replace 1,100 existing public housing units. This is not widely known or discussed.

Labor’s Big Housing Build is in fact a covert attack on Public Housing -an attempt to wind down a public asset.It will be replaced - ie privatised - with new ‘social/community housing’ run by private landlords.

The destruction of Public Housing and the displacement of our communities is hidden beneath the hyperbole and fanfare surrounding Labor’s ‘Commitment to Social Housing’. This hidden privatisation agenda is not being reported by the media.

‘Engage Victoria’, an online consultation platform delivered via the Department of the Premier and Cabinet, claims that Labor's social housing policy will “support strong and inclusive communities”.

As public tenants we know that you would be hard-pressed to find stronger, more inclusive and culturally diverse communities than those living in Public Housing. These communities will be decimated if Labor succeeds in its plans to displace the public tenants and gentrify the area.

Richard Wynne, the Minister for Housing and for Planning, has been made the sole decision maker on any of the Big Housing Build projects. The state government has removed the powers of Victorian Councils to assess and approve any of the developments.This is not democratic.

Here is the motion made by Amanda Stone and passed unanimously by Yarra Council.

Motion No 7 - 20 July 2021

That Yarra Council

- in relation to the proposed “build” at Collingwood, makes a submission which urges the state government to ensure that:

(i) this new housing is and remains public housing ( government owned and managed );

(ii) no green open space is lost for this build and that any significant trees removed are offset on the estate;

(iii) the new development is of the highest ESD standards with high levels of thermal comfort and indoor air quality;

(iv) the existing car parking provision on site is maintained; and

(v) maintenance of the new buildings be of a high standard and that maintenance levels of existing public housing be improved.

Sources

The Age - “Collingwood housing build could cost tower residents their carpark” By Rachel Eddie. July 2. 2021

https://www.theage.com.au/national/victoria/collingwood-housing-build-could-cost-tower-residents-their-car-park-20210701-p585ux.html

City of Yarra’s Housing Strategy 2018

Stephen Jolly’s Facebook page.

PUBLIC TENANT ACTIVIST GROUP POINTS OUT 'BIG PROBLEMS' WITH THE REVIEW

FRIENDS OF PUBLIC HOUSING VIC'S SUBMISSION TO THE

"SOCIAL HOUSING REGULATION REVIEW"

Friends of Public Housing Vic (FOPHV) endorses the submission from Defend and Extend Public Housing Australia, (DEAPHA) but would like to take the opportunity to stress the following points.

It is often erroneously said that Community Housing rents are 'capped at 30%' of combined household income. The background paper into the Social Housing Regulation Review states that "Rents may be higher" in Community Housing than in Public Housing. "CHOs can charge up to 30% of household income ( plus CRA )"

The Victorian Housing Register in its section 'Understanding your Community Housing Rent' states clearly that "Rents for lower income households must not exceed 30% of gross household income at commencement of the tenancy' ( our italics ). Later it states that "Rent does not automatically adjust if household circumstances change." The only requirement is that the registered agency must have some kind of hardship provision strategy in place. From FOPHVs extensive contacts with tenants and their legal representatives we know that in practice this often translates to a few weeks of reduced rent being 'granted' by the Community Housing landlord. If you lose your job, get sick, have your casual shifts cut back etc you are not significantly protected in Community Housing.

Therefore it is simply false to say that Community Housing rents are capped at 30% of household income, a fact that even some of the housing academics get wrong, perhaps because they, like many other privileged groups who advise on government policy, do not necessarily know what is happening 'on the ground'.

The government should listen to the tenants themselves with direct experience of low income, insecure and casual work and the vagaries of government policies regarding pensions and entitlements.

On this point countless public tenants have been misinformed about the protections they might lose transferring to Community Housing, being told that Public Housing and Community Housing are 'much the same thing' - all under the rubric of Social Housing.

By contrast, Public Housing rents are readily rebated to 25% whenever a tenant's household income changes. It is this vital protection that literally keeps people off the streets.

The Housing Register goes on to say that 'a rent figure may include other charges such as for water and electricity'. "Such as" utility charges, but not limited to them. This is another example of the vague and misleading language that bedevils this area. From our contacts we know that parking, maintenance of the grounds, and even so-called 'wrap-around' services such as communal activities for tenants organised by their landlords ( often perceived as paternalistic ) can be included in the rent calculations. We know from our contacts that Community Housing tenants can pay up to 50% of their income to their Housing Association landlords in one way or another.

In differentiating between the Public Housing model and Community/ Social Housing, the background paper raises the topic of Commonwealth Rent Asssistance - CRA. A perpetual ongoing stream of CRA is being mis-used as an operating subsidy for the Community Housing industry that would be far better spent in building public housing. The fact that Public Housing is genuinely affordable and does not need CRA since it is outside the market, is one of the many great strengths of the Public Housing model. This point is not made in the background paper.

It is false to give the impression that Community Housing Organisations have, as a top priority, the goal of housing homeless people - unless you consider the church groups set up by government to mop up the social fallout of what is essentially the privatisation of Public Housing. Again, homeless people are perceived as not 'market viable.' Professor of Urban Housing and Homelessness RMIT and Director of Unison Housing Research Lab, Guy Johnson, in his evidence to the Vic Legislative Council's Inquiry into Homelessness ( 22 Nov 2019 ) pointed out that the financial model underpinning Housing Associations mitigates against them housing homeless people. Furthermore Prof Johnson, in his evidence to this Committee, conceded that when examining the factors preventing homelessness, Public Housing excelled : "what stood out was Public Housing. The magnitude of its effect was many times greater than anything else."

This evidence has yet to be given its full weight.

FOPHV believes that Public Housing should be the cornerstone of Government housing policy direction.

Finally FOPHV has serious concerns regarding Conflict of Interest and the Victorian government's assurance that this review is independent. All three panelists have strong ties, past and present, with the Community Housing Industry and/or KPMG.

People with experience of living in public housing communities and/or homelessness should be directly consulted and on the review panel.

The background paper on this review says that the majority of public tenants choose not to voluntary leave their Public Housing homes. Our experience agrees with the DAEPH submission that tenants overwhelmingly choose Public Housing over Community Housing.

We value our Public Housing homes and want to see the public system improved and extended rather than dismantled and privatised.

Jeremy Dixon, Fiona Ross, Eileen Artmann - Spokespersons Friends of Public Housing Victoria.

VIC GREENS LEADER ON THE INCREASED PRIVATISATION OF PUBLIC HOUSING IN THE PAST 5 YEARS

Friends of Public Housing Vic supports the motion made by Dr Samantha Ratnam, Leader of the Victorian Greens, at the last sitting of Parliament in June 2021. The wording of the motion is forthright about the role of "Community Housing / Social Housing" in the privatisation of our Public Housing sector in Victoria.

Public Housing belongs to the people of Victoria, now and for future generations.

The ongoing covert privatisation of Public Housing is an agenda shared by both the Labor and Liberal parties.

Congratulations Samantha for exposing the term "Social Housing'as an obfuscating term.

FOPHV always addresses the clever role language is playing in the privatisation of Public Housing. What a pity the general public is being hoodwinked into thinking they are one and the same thing.

Here is Samantha's motion.

That this House —

(1) notes that Victoria is in a housing crisis, with 25,000 people experiencing homelessness on any given night and over 100,000 people currently on the public housing waiting list;

(2) condemns the Government for neglecting the public housing system in Victoria, by failing to properly respond to tenant issues and complaints and letting units fall into disrepair;

(3) acknowledges that over the last five years public housing in Victoria has repeatedly been demolished or privatised, with the government shifting responsibility for housing to community housing associations and developers;

(4) further acknowledges that the Government uses the term ‘social housing’ to disguise its failure to invest in the public housing system and calls on the Government to immediately commit to build 100,000 new public housing homes within 10 years.

'COMMUNITY HOUSING / SOCIAL HOUSING' IS PRIVATISATION.

Here is Friends of Public Housing Vic's response to "Labor's Big Housing Build - 10 year strategy." (We have been busy on a number of fronts so sorry for being late in putting this up on the blog.)

We endorse the submissions written by Defend and Extend Public Housing Australia (DEAPHA), both of which can be read here if you scroll back.

As always FOPHV keeps alerting the public to the deliberately misleading language.'Public Housing' and 'Community Housing'are collectively and obfuscatingly referred to as 'Social Housing'.

Don't buy into this! It is the language of privatisation.

The biggest threat to the future survival of Public Housing is its conversion( management and/or titles )to so-called "Community Housing" aka "Social Housing". The gifting of billions of dollars of public money and lucrative public land to the Community / Social Housing businesses is truly scandalous.

Furthermore entire public housing estates (100% public assets) are being demolished under the guise of 'renewal' and replaced with private "Social Housing."

PRIVATISATION BY STEALTH.

Want to get involved? Contact us directly via our facebook page

www.facebook.com/FOPHVIC

or housinghumanrights@gmail.com

Thankyou

----------------------------

FRIENDS OF PUBLIC HOUSING VICTORIA SUBMISSION - TEN YEAR SOCIAL AND AFFORDABLE HOUSING STRATEGY FOR VICTORIA.

Friends of Public Housing supports Defend and Extend Public Housing Australia's submission overall. We believe that building public housing is at present the overriding priority for housing policy and public assets - money and land - should not be diverted from it to inferior alternatives such as community/social housing.

Public housing is well known to be by far the most effective solution to homelessness. It is also the most effective straightforward and transparent solution to housing stress in general, both by direct provision and by the knock-on effect it has in holding down private rents and house prices.

By a historical accident public housing in Melbourne is concentrated in what are now expensive areas. This is in our view a happy accident, it has helped to prevent Melbourne from being economically ghettoized.

The opposition to public housing is essentially ideological. Governments should accept that advanced complex societies cannot leave housing to the market. Nowhere in the world are housing needs acceptably supplied by the private market. This is an inconvenient truth for those who hold currently fashionable economic prejudices of course. This refusal to engage with reality has led governments to think of public housing as something that properly speaking should not be necessary, and that providing it should be seen as charity to the disadvantaged rather than a core government responsibility like public roads, schools or hospitals. Providing public housing does help the disadvantaged of course, and of course that is the current priority. But the aim of public housing should not be solely to provide a landlord of last resort to the homeless and other severely disadvantaged but for public housing to be an accepted and non stigmatised part of the housing mix.

Community lawyers have stated there are 'clear and troubling trends' with community housing and their 'tenancies are not designed to be sustainable'. It seems that the government in its effort to relinquish its responsibilities to the private sector is being deliberately blind to the failures, already apparent, of community /social housing.

We do not see that there is any purpose in government funding "community" housing while money is needed for extending public housing. (The interest in community/social housing is driven by the same ideological preconceptions that led to the Covid security outsourcing debacle!)

The failure of NRAS, which was a waste of taxpayers money and provided no long-term solution to the housing crisis, should not be repeated. We are concerned that the provision of 'affordable housing' might employ the same NRAS tactics under a different name. NRAS was a cash cow for developers of course, but was short sighted policy from the point of the community and a failure on behalf of the government.

All the language of policy makers tends to support the view that the government has essentially made up its mind that the solution for Victoria's housing problems lies in privatisation. We urge the government to rethink this position which is not evidence based. For example for a Housing policy to admit that it will provide no solution to rough sleepers is extraordinary. Surely housing all Victorians should be a top priority. This supports our point that the homeless will always be overlooked by community/social housing because homeless people are not 'market viable'.

More generally a cohesive functioning and well-integrated society, to which housing is fundamental, can not be left to market forces.

Friends of Public Housing Victoria

EXCELLENT SUBMISSION TO 'VIC SOCIAL HOUSING REVIEW' BY DAEPHA

Dear Supporters of Public Housing - Here is an excellent submission to the Victorian Government Social Housing Review by our friends and allies, Defend and Extend Public Housing Australia ( DAEPHA ) Friends of Public Housing Vic has formally endorsed this submission. Well done Howard Marosi and all the team at DEAPHA.Contact them.

Dont be fooled. Don't allow Public Housing to be cleverly privatised...

DEFEND AND EXTEND PUBLIC HOUSING AUSTRALIA SUBMISSION TO THE VICTORIAN GOVERNMENT SOCIAL HOUSING REVIEW, 2021

The simplest and most effective solution to the problems in Social and Affordable Housing is not to review regulation at all, at least of Social Housing.

That is, the solution is three-fold: to stop the privatization of Public Housing and public land, and also to build enough Public Housing to satisfy the needs of the homeless and those on the waiting list, then to expand eligibility for Public Housing to all who want it. (Some of our members also believe that the Victorian Government should not be affecting title of public assets until a formal treaty has been achieved with Victoria`s indigenous population.)

The invention of the ideas of Social and Affordable Housing has actually been the root of the problem. Whatever the motivation of lobbyists in the 1970s against perceived problems with Public Housing, we can say that the concept of Social Housing was implemented by Governments in order to privatize Public Housing for the benefit of private organizations, most of which are misleadingly called “Community Housing”, and that of Affordable Housing to benefit other private landlords. This privatization of Public Housing, of public funding and of public land has proceeded, for the past 30 years, federally since the Keating Government, and in Victoria since the Kennett Government. This process of privatization has failed the 2 real stakeholders; tenants and future tenants through loss of housing security, increased housing stress and higher rents, and the Government and the wider community through wasted public resources, the loss of control of Government policy to the private sector, and increased inequality.

This observation about the failure of privatization is based on the accounts of our many Public Housing and homeless members and contacts, and the objective facts of the advantages of Public Housing over private Social Housing.

Since Australian Governments have recently come under scrutiny for this process, their response has been to hide the distinction between Public Housing and private Social Housing tenancies by referring to private Social Housing inappropriately as “Community Housing”, and then to combine these 2 distinct types into the term “Social Housing”.

We do not expect the Review to fulfil its stated mission, to base its recommendations on the input and interests of tenants, or its aim to give tenants a stronger voice. We say this because the Review reports only to Ministers in a Government which has committed to continue the process of privatization and to avoiding full discussion of the issue. The Andrews Government has committed to continue the process of privatization in its Public Housing Renewal Programme, and its 10-year Big Build Strategy. The Panel has already committed to complementing that strategy, without first asking whether it serves the interests of Government or the tenants. There has been no indication of any significant recognition of the history of privatization and the effects of that.

The Panel claims to be independent- yet one of its members is a Director of the peak body of the Housing Associations, one is a former Executive of a Housing Association and the other is a former Director of KPMG and a former commissioner of the ACCC, 2 organizations likely to support privatization rather than Government ownership and control. We ask the Panel to provide us with Declarations of Conflict as Interest, as required in the Terms of Reference. We expect that such declarations have been made as per the previous paragraph.

We note the opinion piece in the Age on 15th June 2021, by Professor David Hayward, Chair of the Panel. That piece gave a detailed and fair explanation of the achievements of Public Housing, and helps reinforce our view that resources that should be used to maintain and grow Public Housing are currently being wasted. Professor Hayward noted in the article that Public Housing in Victoria is in the black, has low administrative costs and low costs to tax payers, that there is no return on private housing and that people on Government rent assistance are still experiencing severe rental stress. However, the article failed to mention the Housing Associations or any of the history of privatization.

Being long-term Public Housing advocates, we are ever-hopeful, so we call on the Panel to transcend these barriers to fulfilling its mission. We call on the Panel to recognize the failure of privatization of Public Housing, and to recommend rather than reviewing Social Housing regulation, the simple 3 stage solution we advocate be adopted in its report.

It should also be recognized that Victorian Public Housing can suffer further from a review of Social Housing regulations. Public Housing conditions are more favourable for tenants, so a review could worsen those conditions, especially if the aim was to equalize conditions across Social Housing across Victoria or Australia. Further, a Government which is committed to privatization is likely to make regulation ineffectual or not to enforce it, and is also likely to use equalization of conditions across Social Housing to justify its privatization policy. Such justification should be rejected.

Private Social Housing organizations have failed tenants for the past 30 years, in comparison to Public Housing. Any changes to their behaviour as a result of changes to regulation, even if effective and enforced, cannot be assumed to continue long term.

That is the main point of our submission.

In addition, we submit that the Panel: 1.Correct some apparent errors in its explanation of the difference in operation between Public Housing and private Social Housing organizations 2.Emphasize the advantages of Public Housing over private Social Housing organizations from the point of view of tenants and Government 3.Challenge the use of the term “Community Housing”, as being inappropriate to refer to the private Social Housing organizations We submit that the panel recommend also that: 1.Victorian Public Housing regulations which benefit tenants must not be weakened 2.Any changes to the regulations cannot be taken to justify privatization of Public Housing 3.Government funds and property be prioritized to Public Housing so that all Public Housing needs are met before any funding is given to Affordable Housing or to private Social Housing organizations 4.the allowable income for admission to Public Housing be doubled once the current waiting list is satisfied, so that it is equal to that of admission to Housing Associations, and once that need is satisfied, to remove the income test to allow anyone to live in Public Housing 5.the Government allow tenants in private Social Housing to take advantage of superior conditions in Public Housing by converting their leases to Public Housing leases 6.the Victorian Housing Register provide statistics for Public Housing applicants separately from Housing Association applicants

In addition to the above recommendations, we make the following observations. We also include our submission to the Victorian Government`s 10-year strategy, and a brief history and explanation of our group Defend and Extend Public Housing Australia.

Affordable Housing- Whilst this submission is limited to State Public Housing policy, the issue of Affordable Housing impacts on Public Housing. We submit that Government funds and property be prioritized to Public Housing so that all Public Housing needs are met before any funding is given to Affordable Housing.

We also point out that Public Housing is a necessary part of the social safety net, to provide housing as a right to those unable to compete in the private rental market. Public Housing can also serve to lower the demand for private housing, and therefore reduce pressure on private rents and prices. Even though we as a Public Housing group cannot comment on how to regulate private housing, we can say that regulation of private housing is a more cost-effective way of dealing with problems in private housing than directing subsidies to it.

“Social Housing”- The Panel has already begun to analyse the issues in its Background Paper no 1, 2021. The following comments relate to that Paper. We do not share the claims made in the Terms of Reference set out by the Government about the success of private Social Housing, and would expect the Panel to make an objective assessment of that. It has not done so. The Background Paper fails generally to make clear, or sometimes even to state, the benefits to tenants of Public Housing compared to private Social Housing tenants. We do not share the Panel`s repetition of the Government`s claim that the Big Build is the biggest Social Housing build in Victoria`s history. Most importantly, that ignores the fact that it is a continuation of private Social Housing growth at the expense of Public Housing, but also we doubt that the Big Build exceeds the growth of Public Housing across Victoria and the rest of Australia under the Hawke Government- certainly not in per capita terms, but possibly not even in absolute terms.

The Panel recognizes early in the Paper that paying 30% or more of income as rent is rental stress. Only much later on does it state that Housing Associations charge tenants 30%, but does not state that administrative charges mean that it can be even more than that. The paper does not make the necessary consequential statement about Housing Association unaffordability, or note that it is only Public Housing rents, being 25%, which are affordable- instead its definition of Social Landlord credits Housing Associations with providing affordable rent. The situation is even worse when considering that the Housing Associations have Affordable Housing, which is not even required to have any connection to the tenant`s income. We note that the private Social Housing organizations had 16,693 Social Housing properties (in 2019), and yet that they had a total number of properties of about 21,000 (in 2020). This could mean that there may be nearly 20% of properties of private Social Housing organizations for which rents have no connection to income.

The Panel recognizes tenants` need for long term security. It recognizes that Public Housing tenants have security of tenure, and later claims that Housing Associations do also. It contrasts lack of protection in private rentals with that in Social Housing. We believe that there is no long-term security in private Social Housing organization properties, tenants being on short-term leases which do not have to be renewed. The Paper fails to examine how many Social Housing tenants leave due to the expiry of their tenancy, or failure to pay the unaffordable rent. The Victorian Housing Register does not distinguish between Public Housing and Housing Association applicants, so that even the Panel is unable to say how many are waiting for Public Housing, as opposed to private Social Housing.

The Panel recognizes that many disadvantaged tenants face barriers in the private housing market. It mentions the 24,817 homeless in Victoria. Such disadvantaged tenants and the homeless are universally accepted into, and generally have their needs satisfied in Public Housing, via Priority Access in the Public Housing system. That is not the case with private Social Housing. The Panel fails to examine this. Instead, it says that Priority Access is given in Social Housing. The Panel also fails to compare the homeless figure to the 25,548 Housing Association tenancies, and fails to note that the overwhelming number of these tenancies were gifted by the Government, and could have been Public Housing.

The Panel discusses transfer of Public Housing to the private Social Housing organizations in a peripheral way and does not quantify it. We believe that the overwhelming majority of Social Housing properties were gifted from Public Housing and that this is the central issue, of privatization. The Panel refers to the origins of the private Social Housing organizations in the 1970s as being in community and opposed to a paternalistic Public Housing, and that their mission is supposedly to foster their tenant`s interests. It does not recognize that this is largely irrelevant and inapplicable to the way the private Social Housing organizations operate today, with little or no input from the tenants in management, or regard to their interests. It disregards the priorities of the tenants, which are about finance and security, which is why Public Housing is overwhelmingly favoured by the tenants themselves.

The Panel states that The Housing Registrar regulates the Housing Associations, but does not examine how effective that has been. We have been informed that it has been ineffectual.

Defend and Extend Public Housing Australia:

Defend and Extend Public Housing Australia (DAEPHA) is an organization which was established in 2016 by Public Interests Before Corporate Interests, generally to advocate for Public Housing throughout Australia, and also specifically to resist the plans by the Andrews Government to continue the long-running process of privatizing Public Housing in Victoria.

DAEPHA primarily focusses on communicating this message to the public, to political parties and to other organizations which are concerned with the issue of housing. It does this by holding rallies, leafleting the public and political meetings, broadcasting on radio 3CR and liaising with and participating in other groups.

Many DAEPHA activists live in Public Housing and/or are members or associates of the other 2 genuine PH advocacy organizations Friends of Public Housing Victoria, and Housing for the Aged Action Group, although DAEPHA views do not necessarily represent those of these other organizations.

Convenor of DAEPHA is Dr Joseph Toscano, assisted mainly by activists Howard Marosi, Cathryn Murdoch, Don Stokes, Gaz Seron, Jessica Harrison, Julie Jones and Paul Reiner.

Contact: https://www.facebook.com/DefendAndExtendPublicHousing

Albanese Proposes the Privatisation of Public Housing

LABOR’S FEDERAL BUDGET RESPONSE. By JACK VERDINS

The cornerstone of the Albanese budget response is a massive kick in the guts for the homeless and those at the front of the Public Housing waiting lists around Australia.

The pledge of $10 Billion for “Social and Affordable” housing, refers to subsidized housing run by private Community Housing businesses. It is NOT Public Housing. These businesses have profit targets and don’t take those on the lowest incomes. Many refugees, sole parents, those working part-time, aged pensioners and people on disability support, ( and of course homeless people ) get rejected by Community Housing Associations who openly cherry-pick their tenants.

In contrast public housing is owned and run by the government, and rental is limited to 25% of household income, no matter how much this may be. The catch is that with no investment in incremental public housing for 20 years, the waiting list in Victoria has blown out to 110,000 people and an exponential increase in waiting time for those at the front of the list.

‘Social, Community and Affordable Housing’ may have a feel-good homespun sound to them, but they are, in fact, the end result of a cynical privatization of Public Housing by stealth.

Notably, the $5.3 Billion Victorian Big Housing Build in last year’s state budget pledged to work exclusively with Community Housing businesses and private developers, and would in some cases “kick in” public land to build on. No wonder big institutions and overseas investors have been moving in and supporting the privatization strategy, leading National Housing Finance and Investment Corporation CEO Nathan Dal Bon to comment on “… evidence of Australia’s Community Housing sector emerging as a new investment asset class”. This is “finance speak." We need to be concentrating on social welfare. It is alarming to see Anthony Albanese and the Victorian State Government playing along with this, versus doing the hard yards and taking responsibility for the poor and needy.

On a local level, we saw Labor’s ‘Big Housing Build’ in practice recently. Planning Minister Richard Wynne proposed that the City of Yarra donate a prime piece of council land, on which the government would build 100 private dwellings, plus 60 so called 'Social', and 40 'Affordable' housing dwellings. The Greens Councilors from The City of Yarra are to be congratulated on rejecting this. The land would have been lost forever with no gain in public assets. Insulted by the rejection, Richard Wynne stormed off, promising that other councils would be more grateful for such an offer.

One can only hope that they will also be aware of the ‘sleight of hand’ underway, and be willing to stand up to it.

The general public needs to be aware that the term ‘Affordable Housing’ is not being used in its ordinary sense. “Affordable Housing” as Labor defines it, refers to housing that can charge up to 80% of market rents. The rent is often set at 75%, in order for the landlord to claim charitable status and tax breaks.

Labor’s proposal was to build on public land in Collingwood. The median private rent for units in Collingwood, is $450 per week. 75% of this is $337 per week which is hardly affordable for those on low incomes.

We need Public Housing built, not so-called ‘Social’,‘Affordable’ or ‘Community Housing.’

Meanwhile those at the front of the housing waiting list continue to wait, and live off the kindness of others, or exist under the stress of paying a big slab of their income to private landlords.

GREAT SUBMISSION FROM OUR ALLIES - "DEFEND AND EXTEND PUBLIC HOUSING"

The government is committing 5.3 BILLION DOLLARS of PUBLIC MONEY to private business-model housing, aka Social Housing / Community Housing / Housing Associations. In a post Covid / ongoing Covid world it is predicted that more and more people will need public housing. Our allies at Defend and Extend Public Housing Australia - DAEPHA - have put together a submission addressing the Andrews Labor government's 10 year plan.It is an incisive critique of government policy.

Well done to Howard Marosi,Julie Jones,Joe Toscano and all at DEAPHA.

DAEPHA’S DRAFT SUBMISSION FOR THE VICTORIAN GOVERNMENT'S 10 YEAR SOCIAL & AFFORDABLE HOUSING STRATEGY. Defend And Extend Public Housing Australia submits that the Victorian Government`s 10-year housing strategy does not commit anywhere near sufficiently to defending and extending Public Housing, but that it must do so if homelessness is to be solved, and if high quality homes are to be provided at lowest economic cost for all Victorians. The strategy should commit to:

1. Recognising that Public Housing is the best form of housing which Government can provide for tenants, and for the homeless

2. Building enough Public Housing ASAP to satisfy the current waiting list- maybe within 4 years

3. Continuing to build enough Public Housing as it is needed into the future to satisfy the future demand for Public Housing

4. Then, allowing those on higher incomes the choice of public housing by raising the maximum income allowed for applicants for Public Housing, so that it is equal to that allowed for the Housing Associations (aka “Community Housing)- at present, it is about only 1/2.

5. Then, allowing anyone to live in Public Housing, regardless of their income

6. Therefore, prioritising Public Housing over and above other forms of housing, for any Government funding.

7. Ceasing the Victorian Government`s current policy of transferring ownership and/or management of Public Housing to private Housing

Associations (aka “Community” Housing)- which is privatisation. The current policy includes the Social Housing Renewal Programme.

8. Public financing of Public Housing- from Federal or State funds, not private sector bonds as has been proposed elsewhere

9. Public sector design and construction of Public Housing, via a Public Sector Department- as used to be the case before the current policy of Public/Private Partnership was introduced. Public Housing was then of good quality, and low-cost to the Government.

10. Retaining public land on which to build Public Housing- ceasing to sell off public land to the private sector, and ceasing to demolish those existing estates which are in liveable condition

11. Recognise that current Public Housing estates are already largely vibrant, multicultural and dignified communities, which are well located and connected, but which require protection from stigma imposed on them by media, social prejudice, and the Government itself.

12. Recognise that these basic features of Public Housing are intrinsic, and also listen to and respect the voices of Public Housing tenants and the homeless, who when informed, overwhelmingly prefer Public Housing.

13. Recognise that the more Victorians in Public Housing means less demand on the competitive private housing sector, and therefore lower private sector rents and home prices

What the draft strategy says now:

The draft strategy currently:

1. Would maintain the current stock of Public Housing- which is insufficient for the waiting list, let alone those who would apply but for the long wait, and those who will need it in future.

2. Would grow Social Housing to “meet the need”. This means that it will increase Housing Association properties, not Public Housing.

3. Makes no commitment to numbers of houses or time frames, beyond aiming to reach the national average for Social Housing- rather than focussing on known numbers of tenants and homeless whose needs are not satisfied.

4. Makes incorrect claims that the $5.3b Big Housing Build will hugely boost housing affordability- it will barely meet growth in demand, and does not commit to increasing Public Housing.

5. Says it will have co-investment, and act jointly with stakeholders, which include private investors. It says that “Community” Housing providers will play a central role in growth, diversity and choice, and incorrectly claims that everyone involved in Social and Affordable Housing will need to work together- when clearly the Government can meet its responsibility without trying to satisfy private interests.

6. Doesn’t refer specifically to ways in which it will help investors or the Housing Associations.

7. Lumps together all forms of housing which it provides or assists with under the phrase “Social and Affordable Housing”, and does not clearly define the differences for the tenant in these different forms.

8. Maintains the misleading impression that people in “Social” Housing are all in crisis, and need special help - many are not, they are just people on low incomes. They just need to be treated with respect and located as other renters, and don`t need special services.

9. Says that research, data and evidence is needed to determine the best approach- when there is already sufficient data and experience from our history of Public Housing versus the private or privatised forms.

10. Commits to surveying Public Housing tenants regularly about their views on their housing and Government services, which is supported by DAEPHA, as it allows tenants a voice, and f it is done fairly, will probably prove the case for Public Housing.

11. Identifies the obstacles to access to “sustainable” housing as being services, support and information- when these are fairly minor, and the real cause is shortage of Public Housing.

12. Commits to partnering with local government to boost Social Housing via a Compact- but this will almost certainly involve the State Government pressuring local government to give up land for “Community”, not Public, Housing.

Why Public Housing, not Housing Associations or Affordable Housing.

1. Public Housing provides low-cost rent (25% of tenant`s income, and Government pays for modifications for disabled), security of tenure, and admissibility for applicants, which Housing Associations (aka “Community Housing”) do not provide.

2. Housing Associations (aka “Community” Housing) charge 30% of tenant`s income plus administration costs, modifications are paid for by disabled, with no security of tenure, and they cherry-pick applicants on higher incomes.

3. Hence, Public Housing is superior accommodation for tenants, and particularly the homeless, and Housing Associations are inferior at best, and at worst inadequate. Affordable Housing is even less suitable for many tenants, meaning only shared-ownership schemes with the Government or rents set at 80% of market.

ABOUT Defend And Extend Public Housing Australia : Defend and Extend Public Housing Australia is an organisation which was established in 2016 by Public Interests Before Corporate Interests - PIBCI , generally to advocate for Public Housing throughout Australia, and also specifically to resist the plans by the Andrews Government to continue the long-running process of privatising Public Housing in Victoria.

DAEPHA primarily focuses on communicating this message to the public, to political parties and to other organisations which are concerned with the issue of housing. It does this by holding rallies, leafleting the public and political meetings, broadcasting on radio 3CR and liaising with and participating in other groups.

Convenor of DAEPHA is Dr Joseph Toscano, assisted mainly by activists Howard Marosi and Julie Jones. Contact: defendandextendpublichousing@gmail.com or howard_marosi@yahoo.com.au

LABOR AND LIBERAL - BOTH INTENT ON PRIVATISING PUBLIC HOUSING

https://www.sydneycriminallawyers.com.au/blog/save-our-public-housing-an-interview-with-hands-off-glebes-emily-bullock/

Good to read an article that grasps the issues concerning Public Housing as it is happening in Glebe,NSW. The saying that comes to mind is 'Same Shit.Different Bucket' The self-same tactics and modus operandi are being used, as we keep losing genuine Public Housing right across Australia! This is regardless of whether Labor or Liberals are in power in the various states.

We congratulate Sydney Criminal Lawyers for publishing this article on their website, thereby drawing attention to the injustice that is being perpetrated on public tenants,to the journalist Paul Gregoire, and to The Maritime Union in NSW and Greens member Jamie Parker.

EXCERPT-

"Maritime Union of Australia (MUA) Sydney Branch secretary Paul Keating told the crowd that they “shouldn’t be fooled by the notion of social housing… because it’s the purging of the responsibilities of government” via the “contracting out of social services to nongovernment organisations”.

Keating further warned that with the coming of social housing, rents are likely to rise. And he added that in stark contrast to public housing, those operating social housing units are less likely to make allowances for vulnerable residents when they fall on hard times.

NSW Greens MP Jamie Parker spelt out that the privatisation model means 70 percent of public land is given over to the private sector. And while the social allocation involves more units than the current number of public flats, the new ones will have less rooms and significantly less residents.

To read the whole article, click on above link or keep reading here

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Save Our Public Housing: An Interview With Hands Off Glebe’s Emily Bullock 03/02/2021 by Paul Gregoire

In November 2020, NSW housing minister Melinda Pavey informed residents of the Franklyn Street public housing complex in Glebe and the Explorer Street public housing estate in Eveleigh that their homes are slated for demolition to make way for high-rise apartment blocks.

In a pattern that’s increasingly occurring across the Sydney metropolitan area, the residents were informed that new private residential developments were going to be built on public land, which will include 30 percent social housing apartments.

Public housing differs from social housing, in that public housing is run by the Department of Communities and Justice, while social housing is administered by a not-for-profit, regardless of whether its ownership is maintained by the state or a private entity.

The government line on why this is advantageous for public housing residents is they’ll be receiving new homes. However, the reality is that the new high-rises replacing the low-rise estates won’t simply appear overnight, and residents will need to live elsewhere during the construction stage.

Public over Social

A number of demonstrators at the Save Our Homes rally – which took place alongside the Franklyn Street estate in Glebe on 30 January 2021 – remarked that it was encouraging to see so many people turn up at a public housing rally.

Maritime Union of Australia (MUA) Sydney Branch secretary Paul Keating told the crowd that they “shouldn’t be fooled by the notion of social housing… because it’s the purging of the responsibilities of government” via the “contracting out of social services to nongovernment organisations”.

Keating further warned that with the coming of social housing, rents are likely to rise. And he added that in stark contrast to public housing, those operating social housing units are less likely to make allowances for vulnerable residents when they fall on hard times.

NSW Greens MP Jamie Parker spelt out that the privatisation model means 70 percent of public land is given over to the private sector. And while the social allocation involves more units than the current number of public flats, the new ones will have less rooms and significantly less residents.

A fight that can be won

The Glebe public housing estate under threat is situated right next to the Broadway Shopping Mall. It’s only 30 years old, and it includes a range of garden areas, which are supposed to be replaced by roads. And the buildings received an architectural award following their construction.

Hands Off Glebe secretary Emily Bullock has been living in the estate on the Bay Street side for the last three decades. And the 68-year-old artist makes clear that the sense of community that currently exists within the complex will be lost if three high-rise apartment blocks replace it.

Sydney Criminal Lawyers spoke to Ms Bullock about where the residents are expected to go while the new apartments are being constructed, what the housing minister has failed to fill them in on, and why the government is so set on destroying public housing.

Hands Off Glebe secretary Emily Bullock

Emily, back in November, you and the other residents of the Franklyn Street public housing estate were given notice that the complex has been slated for demolition and redevelopment.

It was a “Dear Resident” letter. I wouldn’t call it notice. It was like being informed.

So, this involved the Glebe residents, along with the residents of the Explorer Street public housing estate in Eveleigh, being given two years notice? Two year’s warning. I wouldn’t call it notice.

This is going to impact every resident, but it will also impact everybody in NSW, because the state government is basically passing valuable land directly on to developers. This redevelopment is going to involve the construction of privately owned residences, but there will also be some social housing allocations as well.

Yes. They say there’s going to be 30 percent social housing. At present, there are 108 flats in the complex. They say they’re going to replace them with 131 studio, one bedroom and two bedroom apartments.

But currently we have two, three and four bedroom apartments. There are only about four studio flats.

So, they’re removing lots of bedrooms. They’re saying it’s more. But it’s actually less, because there are fewer bedrooms. It will house fewer people. The estate is currently public housing. But the private towers will instead incorporate social housing. What will this mean?

This means that the government is handing the housing over to a private provider. We don’t know who these housing providers are. We don’t know if the board is being paid one million dollars per person, or whether they’re voluntary. The housing providers are undefined.

So, you’re being offered some of the social housing. But the construction of the new apartments will take some time. Where are residents expected to go in the meantime?

I have no idea. That hasn’t been discussed with me. In fact, on the radio last night, housing minister Melinda Pavey said that we have all been informed and she had sought our advice. We have not been informed. We have not received any advice. We have not been told what’s happening. We are all vague on the details. But we do know that the people who were moved out of Cowper Street public housing about 10 years ago, some of them were moved into our complex and they’re being asked to move again. We also know that the new housing development on Cowper Street is being maintained by Bridge Housing. They pulled down 134 public housing flats, of which many had three bedrooms. And the new buildings are eight floors, which would mean only one or two bedrooms apartments.

So, some of the former public housing tenants, who are now Bridge Housing tenants, are in the block on the corner of Elger Street and Bay Street. A Franklyn Street apartment

So, what’s Hands Off Glebe calling for in regard to the Franklyn Street estate?

Our building should be refurbished. It doesn’t need to be torn down. It’s only 30 years old. It’s basically a sound property. The department has closed the parking for it. So, for the last 30 years, they could have leased that to Wilson Parking. But there are 50 parking spots behind locked gates. They could have been getting money there. The finance of this redevelopment is irregular. They’ve said that they’re going to spend $1.9 billion on our property and the property in Eveleigh. But where’s that money going? And lastly, Emily, there’s a lack of public housing in NSW, so why is the government going to tear down some of it, especially when it’s completely functional? The government seems to dislike public housing. It wants to convert it all to social housing. The important thing is it doesn’t take anybody off the waiting list – absolutely nobody off the waiting list. There are 50,000 public housing applications, so some of those applications would be four, five or six people. It doesn’t say. They’re just applications. People with families have to wait 10 to 15 years for a house. This won’t solve their problem, because they’re just making small sterile units.

Please sign the online petition calling on NSW housing minister Melinda Pavey to halt the demolition of the Glebe and Eveleigh public housing estates.

FRIENDS OF PUBLIC HOUSING VIC'S OPEN LETTER TO FIONA PATTEN

Written by Jeremy Dixon.

The ALP has recently declared its Big Build policy, a major program of building what it calls “social housing” - predictably all the money is going to private community housing (or private “affordable” housing) and not public housing. Indeed it seems that public housing will actually be reduced, as old public housing will be “replaced”, and all experience tells us it will be private community housing that replaces it. “Social housing” has become a term generally intended to deceive. It is used to mean private community housing, but the public is intended to hear “public housing”.

The Reason Party has made a point of its evidence-based approach to policy and this is very welcome. We hope that it will extend this approach beyond opposing various social bigotries, there is a lot of unreason out there!

As advocates of public housing we have a very strong case based on the evidence, assuming any of the social goals that a housing policy may reasonably be supposed to aim for. In particular it is by now widely admitted that public housing is second to none in dealing with homelessness.

What stands against our advocacy for public housing is a very well funded opposition which has, without engaging in open public debate, succeeded in infiltrating the relevant political and academic establishment to a remarkable degree. The advocates of community housing have treated the supposed inherent inferiority of public housing as a fact that needs no evidence, and accordingly have provided none. They argue that support for public housing is behind the times, and that its replacement by community housing is inevitable. These are not rational arguments but appeals to the most cliched logical fallacies.

We hope we can trust a political grouping which has named itself the Reason Party to see through this, and make it transparent to the public. This would help start a rational public discussion of housing policy.

Homelessness expert Professor Guy Johnson from RMIT has conceded that Public Housing is superior to all other models, including community housing, in combating homelessness. He also said that Poverty is the main driver of homelessness. Again, the Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute (AHURI) notes that diirect provision of Public Housing is the best way to solve the housing crisis. It is more efficient to cut out the middle man in other words.

Preventing actual homelessness is of course only a small part of public housing’s broader function of preventing housing stress. Homelessness is the extreme case of housing stress. The recent tendency for academics to recognize public housing’s superiority in this extreme case is welcome, but it should be just the beginning of a broader reality check.