Late last year a
series of presentations were held for public tenants on the subject
of Conflict Resolution, called THIS IS OUR HOME.
A group of members of Friends of Public Housing attended one of the sessions.
A group of members of Friends of Public Housing attended one of the sessions.
The purpose of these
functions was to give examples of common conflicts neighbours
experience which were then addressed in turn by a panel of people
representing Office of Housing, local council, the police, Legal Aid
and the Neighbourhood Justice Centre. This was a great initiative
and we were keen to participate.
Dealing with
conflict is one of life's challenges. Obviously conflict affects
everybody -not only public
tenants. It is important to get it right when it comes to conflict,
addressing problems early, rather than letting situations fester, and
coming up with solutions which are fair and hopefully even result in
strengthening communities.
Conflict can arise
in public housing because people often live cheek by jowl and
furthermore Public Housing houses many people with high and complex
needs who are often overlooked by the private sector and 'community
housing' businesses. Sometimes this can have ramifications as you
will see in the example given below.
By the same token we
should not exaggerate the
problem of conflict within public housing communities, which are
overwhelmingly harmonious and of course law-abiding. People who
believe otherwise are being taken in by a biased tabloid-style
media.
I think the
government has sometimes vacillated by being too neglectful and
dismissive of conflicts that come to their attention, or else far too
punitive by introducing a three strikes eviction policy which is
probably unlawful under the Human Rights Charter.
Before the meeting
started, we chatted with a member of the panel and told her of our
intention to raise the matter of the 3 Strikes Eviction Policy. We
were told that this was not the right
forum to bring up the
three strikes eviction policy. Why
not?
It is always the
right time and place to bring up matters of concern to public tenants
and especially to address issues of social injustice. We all know
that if we don't open our mouths when the opportunity arises the
right forum never materialises anyway- and another opportunity
is lost. We raised the subject and afterwards the same person told us
that she was glad that Friends of Public Housing attended because our
contribution had been important.
One benefit of being
a tenant of the government is that we can have a say in
developing and shaping policy – that's the idea anyway. Since the
forum addressed a topic relevant to public tenants it was very well
attended with translators present. This is another argument why we
are much better off staying with the public system rather than
becoming 'community housing' tenants.
Afterwards we
chatted to our fellow public tenants. They shared with us their
worries and frustrations. I've always found public tenants to be
lovely people – friendly and genuine without pretensions or guile.
It is a disgrace how public tenants are being constantly
vilified in the media.
One lady held my
hand the whole time she was telling me her story. She was troubled.
Her previous neighbour had been evicted and although on the one hand
she was relieved that he was no longer living on the premises because
his behaviour had been disruptive and noisy, she also said that he
was 'more mad than bad'. It sounded as though his behaviour –
roaming alone at night and shouting - had been driven by his
delusional state. He had no support structures and no family that she
knew of. She was a kind person and was troubled that her complaints had contributed to him becoming homeless.
Evictions do not
include plans to help you find somewhere to live. The locks are
changed and you are given two pamphlets which tell you about homelessness services
available and that's it. Apart from perhaps making arrangements to collect
your things, further discussion with the Office of Housing will not
be entered into.
If people are being
made homeless because they are exhibiting symptoms of their illness
which is out of their control, then they are being discriminated
against. At the same time their neighbours need peace and quiet and
sleep. How to address these human problems?
One thing that would
immediately alleviate the pressure on the public housing system would
be for the government to stop allowing Community Housing businesses
who own the titles to cherry-pick their tenants. They can refuse to
house 'unsuitable' tenants without defining what this means. They are
not required to take tenants from Segment 1 of the public housing
waiting list ie those in greatest need. In
any case only 'up to 50%' need to be taken from
the public housing waiting list anyway. This was later amended to
'eligible to be on the waiting list' and Community Housing
Organisations who own the properties are now able to use their own
resources to fill these vacancies, bypassing the waiting list
altogether.
Considering that
they have been given the titles of desperately needed public housing
this is unacceptable.
If
you ignore the hype from those with vested interests in the stock
transfers, and just look at the facts it is not hard to see that
giving away the titles of public housing is not in the public
interest at all and
will lead to rising
poverty, food insecurity, gentrification
and increasing
homelessness.
We
are already seeing this…
But
the Andrews Labor
government in Victoria is planning to hand over even more titles
which
will only make matters worse and contribute to further inequity.
Of course, it falls
on the Public Housing system to continue to try and take up the slack
of housing people according to need and without
discrimination - and with
precious little public housing available.
If we end up with pockets of ghettos and dysfunction in public housing, people
should realise that government policies are creating
this situation.
Public Housing is being given away with very loose 'guidelines' attached to these gifts - guidelines which seem more like loop-holes for big
business and
developers.
These
housing policies amount to
social engineering.
Then the media
points the finger at the dysfunctional and dreadful public tenants,
further dividing our society, and justifying hating on a group of
people. It is all very hypocritical.
It is a testament
to our strong, functional communities that in spite of these
assaults, public housing is still doing so well.
Sources
Moira Rayner-
Barrister and Human Rights expert on the Three Strikes Eviction
policy says it is 'probably unlawful under the Charter because
mandatory rules are inherently arbitrary.'
'Allocation,
eligibility and rent setting in the Australian community housing
sector' p22,24,41
I have been told that in Europe that 60 percent of housing is public housing! I think if this was the case in Australia, that it would improve the quality of experience for people living in public housing as there would be more of a cross section of society in any one housing complex, and variety of classes cultures and ages is more healthy, permaculture as opposed to the monoculture situation like where I live in public housing in Brisbane which is for "seniour housing" which although quiet is quite depressing, rather like living in an old folks home. With more varieties of people comes a healthier emotional climate which could definitely be a way of reducing conflict in public housing. We need more public housing not less!
ReplyDelete