ANOTHER POLITICAL CLANGER

When the Liberal Coalition party were in power in Victoria, it was alleged that at a meeting between a senior Liberal politician and community housing representatives somebody asked the question

'What about the public tenants?'

Maybe the reason for the question was unease about entering into massive paradigm -shifting changes in housing policy, without the knowledge and consent of the public tenants themselves.

Maybe the questioner was disturbed to be entering into arrangements ( involving the prospect of big, serious money and masses of properties ) which include the very real possibility of mass displacement of public tenants from their homes - the end result being homelessness?

Who knows ?

However, it was alleged that 'community housing' members present at the meeting were told that they needn't be overly concerned because

'PUBLIC TENANTS DON'T FEEL THE SAME WAY ABOUT THEIR HOMES AS THE REST OF US DO.'

On discussing the fuel exise - ' the poor don't drive'

and the solution for first home owners is 'to get a good job'.

And furthermore, we can rip the homes away from public tenants with impunity because public tenants are somehow different to the rest of society – we don't feel the same way about our homes as other people do …

A dangerous prejudice that attempts to justify policies of mass displacement. 

Take Queensland for example. A decision was made by the Liberals in 2013 to 'move on' - displace - 250,000 !! public tenants from their homes to make way for 'community housing'.  QCOSS supported the government regarding this policy decision. Barely a mention in the news ...

The lack of any outcry or vigorous criticism by other political parties  - who also have a vested interest in the desired outcome -  is just as disturbing.

http://www.news.com.au/national/breaking-news/qld-govt-to-shake-up-social-housing-system/story-e6frfku9-1226684848152

More about this in a future post ..

If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor. If an elephant has its foot on the tail of a mouse and you say that you are neutral, the mouse will not appreciate your neutrality.

DESMOND TUTU

HOMES UNDER THREAT

Friends of Public Housing Victoria is made up of public tenants, supporters and academics who oppose the privatisation of public housing. We oppose the largely secretive practice of transferring public housing properties to community / social housing businesses.

Ms Alma Ryrie-Jones – editor and policy writer has researched and written a 15 page document entitled 'Homes Under Threat'. Alma spoke eloquently at our Film Night in conjunction with Architects For Peace. She suggested a letter writing campaign and is happy to organise this. If you want to get in contact with Alma please drop a line to my email address housing.humanrights@gmail.com and I will forward your details on.

Here are some excerpts from the document Homes Under Threat.

Public housing homes – homes that provide genuine affordability and security for people in need.
53,000 tenants in Victoria call public housing home.

                                                                   ********

' Everyone agrees that the shortage of affordable housing is a serious problem, and that there must be an expansion of the stock of available affordable housing to deal with it. There is less agreement about what action should be taken. Instead of reinvesting in upgraded public housing and expanding the stock of public housing, state and territory governments have turned to models of funding and development that involve divesting themselves of the existing assets, responsibilities and structures. This means turning public assets over to private landlords, and with it the power over tenancies. It means giving up any responsibility for the well-being of tenants.' P4.

'Nor does anyone have a vision for a permanent balance that would include retaining public assets. If anything, there is the suggestion that all public housing will eventually disappear into the hands of housing associations and community housing providers – alliances between property developers and not for profit organisations, or not for profit organisations turned developers.'  P6

Spin, secrecy and stock transfers.

'It is difficult to understand why there has been such a limited public debate about these issues and how such major action could be taken on so limited an evidence base.'

Positive labels like ‘social’ and ‘community’ make it difficult for many people to see anything to worry about in these developments, and public tenants themselves are often the last to know or understand what is happening. P7

'A good deal of information goes missing from public sites at the slightest suggestion of criticism or open debate. This lack of open discussion and suppression of information is unhealthy. The arguments for governments getting out of direct provision of public housing have been widely promoted, but the arguments against, or arguments for alternative government approaches, have not been part of the conversation.' P7

'In fact the arrangements appear to have successfully compromised the independence of the very people who have the best record not only of serving and supporting the poor and disadvantaged but in speaking out when governments get involved with unscrupulous developers and try to evade their responsibilities by handing over service delivery and the assets that go with it. We wonder how people would view these changes if they were called ‘privatising’ or, more accurately, ‘giving away’ public housing to the private sector and if advocates of social justice were leading the charge against it, instead of becoming part of it.' P7

The problem was not created overnight and cannot be solved overnight. Long-term thinking and planning is needed, not a focus on short-term gains. Instead, the ‘plan’ is to pass the responsibility to others and relinquish ownership and control to organisations which are at least partly, and sometimes wholly, driven by profit motives.P9

These properties are an asset that cannot be replaced,ever,once lost'  P12

GIVING AWAY PUBLIC HOUSING - CUTTING THROUGH THE HYPE.

Conditions attached to the gifting of public housing.

Since the transfer of titles is sometimes preceded by a period of management outsourcing anyway - lets look at the extraordinary loose conditions placed by the government in Victoria upon the Community Housing Providers who are given the titles of public housing.

 You might think that, in exchange for being given the properties and receiving all the rents, they would be taking over the role of public housing? Think again.

The Government guideline states that 'up to 50%' of the vacancies need to be from the public housing waiting list – or eligible to be on the waiting list. The 'UP TO' loophole renders the whole thing rather meaningless.

A recent Public Private Partnership in Victoria resulted in only 10-15% of its newly built properties being made available to people on low incomes. Obviously the developers and the ALP government think that this is a fair and reasonable exchange.

Maybe this gives us a clue as to what percentage can result under the 'up to 50%' Government guideline.

So - the titles of desperately needed and publicly owned properties are handed over to Community Housing businesses. In return Community Housing allocates up to 50% of vacancies to those on the waiting list or eligible to be on it.

The rest of the vacancies - we predict well over half – can be rented out to prospective tenants with an income of up to $905 gross per week – well above the income threshold of people on low incomes. Compare this with the maximum weekly rates for a person on  Disability Pension -$388       Sole Parent - $360        Newstart -$258

In other words former public housing properties are being given away and end up being offered to a different clientele altogether.

Predictably those at the bottom end of the economic scale, the most disadvantaged people, will fall through the cracks, having had their housing ( public housing ) privatised without them being aware of it. They will end up displaced, living in housing stress, squeezed out to make way for gentrification, living in boarding houses, experiencing food insecurity, or made destitute or homeless. This is why the privatisation by stealth of public housing is such a class issue.

The misuse of Commonwealth Rent Assistance – CRA 

What's more, regarding the percentage of tenancies which are taken from the public housing waiting list, or eligible to be on the waiting list ( a later amendment ) – for these the Community Housing Provider can charge 30% of a renter's income in addition to the maximum amount of Commonwealth Rent Assistance it can, which goes directly to the Community Housing Provider.

As stated by the peak body CHFA - Commonwealth Rent Assistance was never intended as an operating subsidy for Community Housing companies, but has effectively become one over time.

In fact, Commonwealth Rent Assistance adds around 50% to rental income across a provider's whole operation over and above what would be received if rents were not optimised for CRA. The peak body for Community Housing also makes it clear that ongoing access to CRA is 'crucial' to maintaining their businesses. 

That's a hell of a lot of ongoing taxpayer-funded money needed to prop up community housing associations and providers, who now own the properties, in order for them to provide even a percentage of vacancies to those on low incomes and pensions.

The public has a right to know just what community housing - sometimes referred to as social housing - is really costing.

Compare this to Public Housing where tenants receive no Commonwealth Rent Assistance whatsoever, because the rents are genuinely within their means, ( and go back into the public purse ) and you have to ask 'Which is the real subsidised housing here?'

Like the National Rental Affordability Scheme- NRAS - these schemes do not make good financial sense. They are financial black holes which the taxpayer has to pay for.

Sources

http://chfa.com.au/sites/default/files/sites/default/files/docs/eligibility_allocation_and_rent_setting_in_ch_final_april_2014.pdf

pp 22. 41. 43. 44. 45.

http://www.smh.com.au/national/inclusionary-zoning-policies-can-exclude-poorer-residents-from-highend-apartments-20150312-1421a7.html

                                                 FRIENDS OF PUBLIC HOUSING VIC

                                          KEEP PUBLIC HOUSING IN PUBLIC HANDS