DAMNING REPORT SPEEDS UP ALP'S PRIVATISATION AGENDA

HOW EXTRAORDINARY THAT ON THE HEELS OF SUCH A DAMNING REPORT -  
LABOR'S RESPONSE IN VIC IS TO DO MORE OF THE SAME !!! 

http://www.premier.vic.gov.au/reform-growth-and-better-outcomes-for-social-housing/

Labor wants to continue to throw obscene amounts of money at the private sector to 'incentivise' them to do what is essentially the Government's responsibility - to fix the housing crisis and halt accelerating homelessness and destitution.

The report states
"A further $100 million in low-cost loans will also be made available to registered housing associations."  "The $1 billion Social Housing Growth Fund, a collaboration between government, the private and philanthropic sectors, will provide dedicated assistance to community housing associations to help support up to 2200 households."

Ominously, there is no specific mention of Public Housing in the press release, except to declare its privatisation.

"The management of 4,000 public housing properties will be transferred to the community housing sector to improve services to tenants through better property management, local housing services, access to support services and grow social housing."

How does address the housing crisis ??  It doesn't. It reflects Labor's determination to push through covert privatisation plans it has been developing for years.

Of course there's no mention of the perpetual stream of Commonwealth Rent Assistance, not required by Public Housing tenants whatsoever, which is needed to prop up these organisations. This money directly benefits the Community Housing barons - it is dead money which could be better spent building more public housing.

Our diverse public housing tenants - many who have disabilities, are from Cultures other than English ( CALD )  or are elderly pensioners, are being treated like third-class citizens and chattel by Labor. As Adam Bandt says - with 'contempt'.

Public tenants stand to lose many, many rights and protections at a time when housing security is more important than ever...   

This is an attack on public housing - and on the rights of public tenants.   
SHAME ON LABOR !
 
                                      ----------------------------------

ON THE SAME DAY, GREENS FEDERAL MEMBER, ADAM BANDT, ISSUED A SWIFT RESPONSE TO MARTIN FOLEY.

"GREENS DEMAND LABOR STOP PUBLIC HOUSING HAND OFF."

Victorian Labor must not hand over 4,000 public housing properties to third parties, said Greens MP Adam Bandt, whose electorate of Melbourne has more public housing than any other in the country.

“We need more public housing, not less,” Mr Bandt said.

“Community housing is an important part of Melbourne’s housing mix, but it shouldn’t come at the expense of public housing.”

“Public housing is under attack. The Federal Coalition is slashing housing funding while Victorian Labor is handing away public housing homes.”

“Victorian Labor has sat on its hands since being elected while people in need are waiting for years for a secure home.”

“There was a time long ago when the Labor party believed in building public assets like public housing, but it seems they are now just following the Liberals’ privatisation agenda.”

“Only the Greens have a plan to tackle Melbourne’s housing crisis, make housing more affordable and invest in public housing.”

“If the Labor party continues to take public housing residents for granted, they stand to lose several inner city seats at the next Victorian election.”

http://www.adambandt.com/170223_2

LABOR'S HOUSING SCANDAL

                            
For those among you, who have been unsure about the whole public /community / social housing issue, please read this front page expose in The Australian.

This vindicates what Friends of Public Housing Victoria have been saying all along.
One cannot argue with the facts. 

It is not surprising that people have been confused, since all the ins and outs of the various housing organisations and their policies, such as changes to criteria and allocations, who benefits and who loses, have been largely concealed from the public.

The National Housing Affordability Scheme, which began under Rudd in 2009, has been an ongoing gravy-train for many people with a vested interest in it- but a tragic failure for those people in desperate need of housing.

There is a lot of hype, mission statements etc, and PR promoting Community ( Social ) Housing - which are privatised versions of Public Housing. But the results speak for themselves.

People have been rendered homeless by this housing policy - and they have been kept homeless.

Where have all the billions of dollars that were meant to alleviate the housing crisis and eliminate homelessness gone !?? 

Labor has now paved the way for the Liberals to step in and axe this funding and to replace it with another scheme of their own ...

And the destitution on our streets will, no doubt, continue to worsen, regardless of which of the two major political parties gets into power ...


A very important article by The Australian.

$9bn home affordability scheme to be dumped

Author: Simon Benson. National Affairs Editor. The Australian. Feb 10, 2017

The $9 billion National Housing Affordability Agreement is set to be axed in the May budget following a report revealing that the states and territories had failed to meet almost every benchmark set by the federal government since it began in 2009.

Figures obtained by The Australian revealed that the Rudd government scheme, with a price tag of almost $1.5bn a year in grants to the states, had not delivered any measurable improvement in the provision of affordable housing.

Despite pledges to increase the supply of social housing, the 2017 Report on Government Services (ROGS) shows that public housing stock, instead of increasing as committed, had been falling since 2009, going backwards by 16,000 homes.

Even the transfer of public housing stock to subsidised social housing had also failed to meet any targets to increase the supply of affordable housing.

Furthermore, 20 per cent of that existing stock was now considered to be in an unacceptable state while 8 per cent was uninhabitable.

A promise to reduce homelessness by 7 per cent had also not been met, with the homeless rate instead rising 17 per cent.

The states and territories had also failed to deliver on commitments to alleviate by 10 per cent the number of low-income households under rental stress, considered to be those spending more than 30 per cent of their income on rent. The number of households now in that category rose from 32.4 per cent to 42.5 per cent since 2008.

The government has hinted that it is preparing to replace the agreement, which would deliver immediate savings to the budget of $1.5bn a year, with radical reforms including the possibility of a government-backed bond scheme to stimulate investment from the private sector to expand capacity.

ROGS reveals that state and territory governments cut spending on social housing from $4.1bn in 2014-15 to $3.9bn in 2015-16 despite an increase in the federal grants paid to them.

The report revealed that public housing supply had contracted from 345,707 in 2007 to 321,879 last year. It noted that the provision of social housing dwellings had risen from 33,526 to 72,410, but this was due to the expanding role of private and community sector provision of affordable housing and came at little net cost to the state and territory governments as it was also partly subsided federally through rental assistance schemes.

The report also claimed that community housing had rising rates of overcrowding. The story was similar for the provision and funding of state-owned and managed indigenous housing.

The significant investment has been subjected to little accountability or transparency from the states and territories, raising the question as to how the money had been spent.

The 2016 report to COAG on the agreement confirmed that little had been achieved despite the significant funding.

"Despite large investment there has been minimal enduring annual growth in the stock of affordable housing in Australia over the last five years," it said.

"While private dwelling supply has increased significantly in recent years, social housing dwelling construction has remained flat." Assistant Minister to the Treasurer Michael Sukkar said the report suggested that the 2009 agreement underwritten by the former federal Labor government had been an abject failure. "We believe it's crucial that every dollar of spending on affordable housing programs increases the number and availability of public and social housing stock. Clearly, this objective has not been met," he told The Australian.

"Given the nearly $9bn of payments from the commonwealth to the states and territories under this agreement since 2009, it's understandable to question the value of this spend, given affordable housing outcomes have got worse over that time." Treasurer Scott Morrison has said that a more efficient way of delivering affordable housing had to be found to achieve better social and economic outcomes.

The Feeney family, from Whalan in Sydney's west, have lived in the same social housing for almost 18 years. For the past 10 years, they say the house has fallen into disrepair.

"They just don't give a shit," said 43-year-old matriarch Tania Feeney of the Housing Department. "Last year we had to wait eight months to have our gutters repaired after they were blown off in a bad wind storm and in the meantime our walls got a lot of water damage. I ended up fixing the back room myself because of the mould and I have terrible arthritis so that was a tough ask. The department come and do their six or 12 monthly inspections but hardly anything ever gets properly fixed." Her 21-year-old daughter Skye said the power kept cutting out, causing great discomfort over summer in the western Sydney heat. "We've called housing multiple times about it but we still haven't got any help for it," Skye said.

Federation of Housing Associations executive director Wendy Hayhurst said there had been little transparency in how the money had been spent.

 "The agreement is not the most transparent agreement ... it hasn't set very high expectations," she said. "It is difficult to understand how that money has been spent." While Ms Hayhurst said it was a large investment by the federal government, it was not enough to tackle the problem. She also supported the bond aggregator model but said it was critical that state and territory planning and land use laws were reformed to give greater scope for developers to contribute through a value sharing arrangement. "Until recently social and affordable housing hasn't been at the top of the political agenda so there has been no scrutiny," she said. "Agreements come with expectations ... it's not just about maintaining the status quo ... but using it in the best way you can so you can increase those numbers. It's a large amount of money but it is insufficient to deal with a backlog of problems."Even if it is spent better it won't be enough."

The housing agreement, one of three specific purpose payments to the states from the federal government, was contingent on ensuring all Australians had access to affordable, safe and sustainable housing.

NSW was the largest recipient of the funding totalling $1.3bn since 2009 but had overseen the largest fall in available public housing stock, dropping from 118,907 to 110,174.

ATTACKING CIVIL LIBERTIES OF HOMELESS PEOPLE

OUR JOINT SUBMISSION TO CITY OF MELBOURNE COUNCIL



On Tues 7th February 2017, in a volatile meeting at Town Hall, City of Melbourne Councillors voted 5-4 to change the definition of the word 'camping' in its legislation, which would make it easier to keep moving homeless people on.

This is their response to the homelessness crisis in the CBD.

There is a 28 day period of public consultation before it becomes effective as a bylaw.

Funny sort of democracy when 9 people can vote on the civil liberties of vulnerable people, resulting in virtually making them outcasts. ( Something wrong there.. )

Although Mayor Doyle is at pains to say that homelessness is not illegal per se- it might as well be. With the new legislation in place, homeless people can be penalised for sleeping in a public space.
He has also said the new law would be used 'with discretion'.

Such a 'disclaimer' should reassure no-one. The 'social capital' of trust is in very short supply- especially when it comes to the ongoing 'affordable' 'community housing' racket, with which they are attempting to replace genuine Public Housing, and the disturbingly biased coverage by even the mainstream media.

The very people bearing the brunt of Australia's shortsighted housing policies are being treated unfairly and with contempt. Demonising people is always wrong. But that is what is happening - no political party wants to admit and take responsibility for its housing policy failures.

On this blog we aim to give another perspective to what you read in the newspapers - tell you how things really are at the grass roots. We have talked to many homeless people and listened to their stories. Homeless people feel that they are being cast in the worst possible light by the newspapers. They say that the reports are exaggerated, and are sometimes downright lies.

The amended legislation by Melbourne City Council means that the word 'camping' is no longer restricted to living in a tent, vehicle or other structure. According to legal experts, the definition of 'camping' is now so broad it can encompass people sheltering in a swag, under a blanket or even lying on a piece of cardboard.

According to The Age, 'Legal experts have savaged the proposal from City of Melbourne officials to introduce an outright ban on public camping, saying the planned reforms were a "ridiculous waste of resources" that could put people in danger.'

But it has now been passed, 5 votes to 4.

Under the new legislation homeless people could be fined $250 or face a court fine of $2000.
They can have their belongings confiscated and will have to pay a fine in order to retrieve them.
The council also intends to launch a campaign to discourage the general public from giving items or food to homeless people.

One wonders whether, in time, this 'discouragement' will also become an offense which incurs a fine. Giving to a homeless person is now outlawed in other parts of the world. Permission slips to share food with homeless people have to be obtained and approved - amounting to further attacks on people's freedoms. ( Houston Texas.)

There are powerful business interest groups that want this homelessness problem fixed one way or another, as a matter of urgency. It interferes with the tourist trade and is generally bad for business. How many would be overly concerned about the pesky problem of civil liberties and human rights?

When Sam Newman was asked to run for Mayor in June 2016, he said in an interview with Neil Mitchell "Ive been asked a couple of times' (to run for Lord Mayor) and always it gets down to would you shove and move on the homeless people- the unfortunate people- and that always seems to be the main thing."

Mayor Doyle has said in a statement, "I am very keen to work with Victoria Police in coming months on the new assertive, even aggressive outreach programs that we are trialling to address homelessness." 'Assertive' outreach has become 'aggressive outreach'

- surely a contradiction in terms.

The public are being appeased into believing that homeless people in the inner-city are being offered 'suitable accommodation'. People assume that the rough sleepers will be permanently housed. But according to what we have been told by homeless advocates, this can simply mean a few nights' subsidised accommodation in a rundown yet pricey motel. After which it is back on the streets ...

Says chief executive of Inner Melbourne Community Legal, Dan Stubbs of the change to legislation, "This is criminalising the homeless instead of trying to do something about homelessness. It is making homeless people into the problem rather than recognising that we have a housing crisis."

Housing is in a right MESS in Australia- and one of the main contributing factors is the disturbing suppression of any and all pro-public housing arguments by individuals, organisations or in the media. Instead the media is content to demonise people-  homeless people, public tenants and more recently demonstrators and protesters.

What is happening to public housing is part of the neoliberalism / economic rationalism thinking that attempts to privatise everything.

We try to show you in this blog the 'nuts and bolts' of how it is being done- how they are changing the policies and the legislation.

Public Housing has been on the chopping block in many other parts of the world.
An underclass is created. Homelessness escalates and the genuine charities find it impossible to mop up the social fallout that ensues.

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

Here is our submission sent to the City of Melbourne Council. Those Councillors in favour of this proposal have already almost achieved their objective. The clause concerning the Human Rights Charter appears to be added as an after-thought really, to be rubber-stamped by the relevant
departmental body. But Human Rights lawyers have already slammed this ?!

Unfortunately this is how these things are often done. In the face of little public interest, or any further media coverage -they will push it through.

It's not good enough. The public should demand genuine consultation and the onus is on the Council to show us how it has applied the Human Rights Charter and how it has addressed the grave concerns of Human Rights lawyers.

                     ---------------------------------------------------
JOINT SUBMISSION.

We believe that the proposed changes to legislation by City of Melbourne Council discriminates against homeless people.

Please can the Council demonstrate how it has considered and applied the Victorian Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities in the process of formulating these proposals.

We believe this should be undertaken before any amendments are made, rather than afterwards as outlined in 11.2 of the document.

( 11.2. notes that an assessment will be made in respect to the Amending Local Law and its compatibility with the human rights set out in part 2 of the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006 ) 

Assessing how the proposed amendments comply ( or otherwise ) with the Human Rights Charter should be transparent and open to public scrutiny and input.

This is particularly important considering the extreme vulnerability of homeless people, many of whom present with complex needs and disabilities.

Thank-you

Friends of Public Housing Victoria    ( FOPHV )
Homeless Persons Union  Victoria ( HPUV )
Experts by Experience      ( eXe )
Public Interests before Corporate Interests  ( PIBCI )
Defend and Extend Public Housing  ( DAEPH )
# No Homeless Ban  
Community Housing Support Group

Sources
http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/fiery-start-to-melbourne-council-debate-on-homeless-camping-ban-20170207-gu7lun.html

http://www.3aw.com.au/news/sam-newman-is-considering-running-for-lord-mayor-of-melbourne-20160622-gppqtz.html

http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/it-might-be-a-blanket-ban-but-lawyers-say-outlawing-camping-is-ridiculous-20170203-gu57mx.html

http://theantimedia.org/houston-police-throw-away-food-homeless/

HOMELESSNESS - GLOBAL PERSPECTIVE - IDAHO

AUSTRALIA IS GOING DOWN THE SAME PATH - AND ATTEMPTING TO ADOPT THE SAME TACTICS...

Rather than solve homelessness, the goal seems to be to push the problem out of sight and out of mind. Such tactics have already been tried, and have failed in other countries.

Systematically vilifying homeless people and applying ever more varied punitive measures, designed to make life even harder for them - demeans us all.

The only sensible solution is to provide housing for all our citizens - by ensuring a robust public housing sector.

The following article presents a holistic argument, and contains a real message of hope- as US municipalities take heed of a decision handed down by the Dept of Justice.

The article is titled

'No Camping,' and Other Laws That Sneakily Push the Homeless Away - Oct 2015

written by Robert Rosenberger,
Associate Professor of Philosophy in the School of Public Policy
at the Georgia Institute of Technology.

"Is it Constitutional to outlaw sleeping in public when people don’t have any other option?

Early in August, the Department of Justice weighed in on a legal dispute over ordinances in the city of Boise, Idaho, that make it a crime to sleep in public. The plaintiffs, who first filed the lawsuit in 2009, were themselves homeless people convicted of disobeying these laws. In its statement, the DOJ argues that, in instances when shelter accommodations are unavailable, it is unconstitutional to criminalize sleeping in a public space.

In the DOJ’s eyes, it’s a violation of the Eighth Amendment, because it’s cruel to punish someone for sleeping in public when no viable alternative exists.

While the judge threw this particular case out (much to the apparent pleasure of Boise’s mayor) in part because some of the plaintiffs are no longer homeless, he noted that there’s no reason that eligible plaintiffs couldn’t file a similar suit in the future.

The DOJ’s statement did more than simply weigh in on the Boise case—it presented U.S. cities with a legal test for laws that effectively outlaw homelessness. Municipalities across America have now been notified: If a law criminalizes sleeping outside when shelter space is otherwise unavailable, then in the eyes of the DOJ that law violates the Constitution.

Some cities are already acting to align themselves with this notion. In direct response to the DOJ statement, some cities—such as San Francisco and Vancouver, Washington—are reconsidering their own camping and sleeping bans. And bolstered by the DOJ’s statement, several homeless plaintiffs are challenging the anti-camping laws in Sarasota, Florida, in court, with the aid of the ACLU.

Given the prevalence of anti-camping laws in the U.S., many more people could follow suit.

According to a National Law Center on Homelessness & Poverty report analyzing 187 U.S. cities, more than half prohibit camping, sitting, or lying down in certain areas, with more than a third banning camping citywide. That represents a substantial increase in such legislation in just the past few years.

In addition to introducing a legal test, the DOJ’s statement implies a moral one: What qualifies as needlessly cruel treatment of the homeless?

For example, the DOJ’s reasoning could be extended to consider whether it’s also cruel to prosecute those sleeping on the street when their practical options have been constrained by mental illness or addiction. And what if they’re denied shelter access because of their alcoholism, or they own a pet, or they run up against a maximum-stay limit, or they’d rather not take part in a shelter’s religious services? What if there aren’t enough local jobs for them to find employment? What if there’s a chronic lack of affordable housing?

Probing from this angle, a lot of the current legislation affecting the homeless appears to gloss over some basic moral concerns. The homeless can find nearly every aspect of their daily lives under threat: Cities enact ordinances against loitering, pushing shopping carts, storing personal items in public space, sleeping in cars, and panhandling. The cruelty that the DOJ identifies in anti-camping laws is just as present in these sorts of rules.

If it is cruel to criminalize these acts, then there is corresponding cruelty in the concerted effort cities make to design objects that help push the homeless population out of shared spaces.

Plenty of assumptions that violate the DOJ’s thinking are physically built into public spaces around the country. Parks and subway stations, for example, can have design elements that push away the homeless. There are plenty of benches that have been built in ways ensuring that they cannot be used as places to sleep—one common version includes armrests that prevent people from reclining along the width of the bench. And there are spikes and studs planted on ledges and other horizontal surfaces.

A prime example of this approach to design is embodied in the nation’s public garbage cans, simple, low-tech objects that fill a number of social roles. Some are fitted into cages of long, vertical slats as a graffiti-deterrence measure. Others are designed with a clear casing to make it more difficult to hide a bomb inside. Trash cans also appear to be designed with the goal of deterring homeless people from fishing out plastic and glass bottles, which yield payments when deposited at recycling centers. The express purpose of “rain hoods” is not to discourage such rummaging, but they do so nonetheless. Locking mechanisms, together with these hoods, often make sure a message is sent: If they can’t reach in, and they can’t open the door, then they’ll have to go elsewhere.

The combined effect of these design decisions—indeed, the nation’s developing stance toward the homeless in general—is not to solve the problem of homelessness, but to hide it. Current policies push homeless people out of public spaces and deeper into the margins of the city, or even into the spokes of the criminal-justice system.

But some garbage-can designs now include a separate rack where recyclables can be placed, making them easier for others to retrieve. Some trash cans in San Francisco, for instance, are fitted with separate baskets for bottles and cans. The city doesn’t actively recycle the materials left in those baskets, but instead allows the homeless to collect their contents.

This points toward a way forward: Providing for the homeless is probably the best strategy for all involved. In fact, studies are finding that simply giving homes to the homeless is much less expensive than the combined costs of emergency room visits, policing, and criminal prosecution. Just as there are other ways to design garbage cans, there are ways to write policies that are considerate of the needs of people who have very little"

https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/10/no-camping-and-other-laws-that-sneakily-push-the-homeless-away/412216/

FLINDERS ST PROTEST

Post by HOWARD MAROSI -FRIENDS OF PUBLIC HOUSING VIC
                                                 DEFEND AND EXTEND PUBLIC HOUSING

The almost completely non-violent, obedient protest in Flinders Street has been sensationalized, distorted and smeared by the mainstream media.

https://www.facebook.com/9NewsMelbourne/videos/1792815744315412/?pnref=story (Channel 9`s unedited footage of the Flinders Street protest)

I looked at the entire 1 hour 20 minutes of footage. I would call it a non-violent demonstration, where police were obeyed by protesters and the homeless. There looked like hundreds of protesters, and there were only 2 or 3 violent people reported. 

Protesters give up their own time and money to exercise their democratic right. They are the opposite of "professional" protesters.

Channel 9`s report on the other hand sensationalized the very few violent incidents, showing one arrestee Naomi warning of violence and weapons, which did not materialize and probably never would have. The report smeared the protest and the protesters, by not ever saying that everyone else was non-violent or that they obeyed the police.

Here is the link to the channel 9 report: http://www.9news.com.au/…/homeless-group-say-they-will-re…/…

ABC also distorted and sensationalized the protest, and smeared protesters.

http://www.abc.net.au/…/violence-on-flinders-street…/8228862
Lastly, where was the presence of the Australian Greens, official or unofficial?

RALLY- THE PRIVATE SECTOR WILL NEVER FIX HOMELESSNESS.

BLOGPOST FROM OUR ALLIES -
DEFEND AND EXTEND PUBLIC HOUSING
AND PUBLIC INTEREST BEFORE CORPORATE INTERESTS.- PIBCI
by DR JOE TOSCANO

Housing affordability is as we all know, a critical issue in Australia today. Over the past two decades state governments and successive Federal governments have pursued a policy of privatising public housing.

Defend And Extend Public Housing (DAEPH) was formed three months ago to ensure the case for public housing was at the forefront of the housing affordability debate. In a nutshell, the greater the number of public housing units built and maintained by state and Federal governments, the greater the downward pressure on rents and the greater the ability of first home buyers to enter the market (decreasing rental revenue will force property investors who rely on rental returns and capital gains to divest themselves of their rental properties at reduced prices).

So, what is an INSIDE / OUTSIDE campaign? An inside / outside campaign is a campaign that targets parliamentary representatives and builds a direct action mass movement which increases the pressure on parliamentary representatives to make legislative changes.

In Victoria while the Labor Party has a majority in Parliament and the Liberal and National Party have substantial numbers in opposition, two Greens members (Melbourne and Prahran) were elected to the Legislative Assembly at the last state election in 2015.

In the Legislative Council the Greens hold five seats, the Sex Party one, the Democratic Labor Party one, the Shooters, Fishers and Farmers Party two and the Australian Employment Party one giving the opposition a majority in the Legislative Council.

The ALP is on a knife edge in six central Melbourne seats and with a good campaign it’s very likely the Greens will hold the balance of power in the Legislative Assembly and will determine who governs after the 2018 state election.

The Victorian Greens have a clear policy of promoting and supporting Public Housing. The INSIDE campaign is directed at targeting the ALP government to change its public housing policy. Currently they are transferring both public housing management and titles to both the non-profit sector and the for profit sector. The Victorian Housing Minister, Martin Foley, represents the marginal inner city electorate of Albert Park. He won his seat as a consequence of a door knocking campaign of public housing estates in his electorate claiming he opposed the Liberal/National Napthine government privatising 12,000 public housing units. His parliamentary seat is particularly vulnerable because an increasing number of public housing tenants believe they were lied to at the last state election.

This INSIDE campaign is directed at forcing the Labor government, in Victoria, to abandon its current housing policies and replace them with public housing friendly policies.

The OUTSIDE campaign is directed at slowly creating a mass movement over the issue of affordable housing. This campaign includes public tenants, the homeless, private tenants, first home buyers, people paying off mortgages and people who own their own homes who are concerned at the ability of their children and grandchildren having access to affordable housing. This campaign is centred around holding DAEPH rallies on the steps of Parliament House every month until the state election in October 2018. The rallies are designed to mobilise people around the public housing issue and giving members of Victoria’s Parliament the ability to publicly state their position on the important question of public housing. As we get closer to the Victorian state election and the DAEPH campaign gains traction, the Inside and Outside campaigns will meld into one campaign.


JOIN US for the first of the 2017 rallies midday – 2:00pm Wednesday 8th February.

Listen to the speakers, use the open microphone to state your views.
Dr. Joseph Toscano / Joint Convener Defend And Extend Public Housing

https://www.facebook.com/events/1884382931792031/