SCRAP THE COMBINED WAITING LIST

Re Covid 19 updates
https://www.dhhs.vic.gov.au/coronavirus-covid-19-daily-update

NO - COMMUNITY HOUSING ( AKA SOCIAL HOUSING )
IS NOT 'ON THE SAME PAGE' AS PUBLIC HOUSING.
-  WHY THE COMBINED WAITING LIST SHOULD BE SCRAPPED.

Friends of Public Housing Victoria's   Attachment to our Submission  (244 )     to the Inquiry into Homelessness. https://savepublichousing.blogspot.com/2020/03/parliamentary-inquiry-into-homelessness.html  or scroll down the blog  two posts. ----------------------------------

We propose an end to the conjoined waiting list.

The combined waiting list puts prospective public housing tenants and private 'community housing’ tenants on a single 'social housing' waiting list.

It was brought into legislation in 2016 and FOPHV raised our concerns at the time, covering much the same points that Wendy Lovell, formerly Minister and Shadow Minister for Housing, put to Parliament.

Wendy Lovell questioned the willingness of some Community Housing operators to house the most vulnerable, and drew attention to the fact that Housing Associations can house tenants who would not even be eligible for Public Housing's Segment 4 ( which means those who are in a low income bracket without necessarily any other factors. ) The answers to Wendy Lovell's questions were inadequate at the time- and yet the Bill was disappointingly passed by Liberal, Labor, Greens and the Sex Party ( now known as the Reason Party ).

Over three years later, our concerns have been justified.

We note that politicians in opposition are often better at critiquing policy than when they are in government. We appreciate Wendy Lovell's work as an opposition member, much as we appreciated Richard Wynne’s work as an opposition member. Friends of Public Housing Victoria is genuinely non-party political. We speak with politicians of all political stances, in our efforts to ensure that Public Housing is preserved in the interest of a cohesive society free of homelessness, and does not disappear by stealth.

We bring to this Inquiry our experience as public tenants.

We believe the cherry-picking of prospective tenants by Community Housing businesses is undermining the Public Housing system. The discriminatory practice of choosing tenants they can most profit from results in an ever increasing definition of Public Housing as welfare housing, instead of the more diverse working class communities it has traditionally represented.

From a capitalist market perspective Public Housing is becoming seen as ‘residual’ housing which, apart from being stigmatising, can lead to the very problems that the government claims it wants to avoid- ie pockets of disadvantage. Furthermore, this would make it easier politically to privatise the remainder of Public Housing in future.

The relentlessly negative reporting of Public Housing and public tenants in the media has obscured the overwhelmingly positive contribution of Public Housing. This stereotyping has rarely been challenged by our politicians. It seems that Public Housing will only be appreciated for the role it has played when it’s gone.

Our vision is for Victoria to have a robust Public Housing sector available to a broader demographic.

Cherry-picking, insecure contracts, easier evictions and worse conditions in general, is intrinsic to the nature of Community Housing organisations as essentially private enterprise which has to make a profit to be viable, even if that profit is not distributed as dividends.

The takeover of Public Housing by Community Housing operators creates a residual underclass which is evidenced by an escalating need for Emergency and Transitional Housing. This underclass is apparently intended by the government to end up being the responsibility of the Churches. ( Church based housing providers such as the Salvation Army ). We have heard of homeless people having to stand up for prayers before being fed in a church shelter.

In a secular society with separation of Church and State enshrined in the Federal constitution this is disturbing. The government should not be handing over responsibility for the fate of vulnerable people to the churches.

Conflating Public Housing and Community Housing as ‘much the same thing’ in its documents, and pointing tenants towards Community Housing with its combined Waiting List, is confusing and misleading. We have frequent anecdotal evidence that public tenants are commonly pressured to accept Community Housing vacancies by state Housing Officers. This should not be their role.

As a grass roots organisation we hear of many tenants disgruntled with Community Housing who were misled and confused about the differences. The combined Waiting List is this confusion made manifest.

The combined waiting list was introduced as an administrative convenience, but it functions as an instrument for gutting Public Housing and an exercise in social engineering.

We want a return to the single Public Housing waiting list and Community Housing can continue with their own waiting lists. Also the umbrella term Social Housing should be dropped in the interests of clarity.

Further points for Consideration

- We are disappointed that the privatisation of Public Housing via stock and management transfers, was not included in your list of important factors to be discussed as part of this Inquiry.

- As Prof Guy Johnson conceded, the research is clear that Public Housing outperformed other Housing models in preventing homelessness, and that the main driver of homelessness is poverty. In our view these agreed facts should form the basis of all serious housing policies addressing homelessness.

- Conflicts of interest is endemic to this Housing Policy and Homelessness space.

- The Government decision to transfer management of 4000 Public Housing properties to Community Housing should be scrapped.

Jeremy Dixon
Fiona Ross
Friends of Public Housing Victoria

If you want to get more involved in this campaign please contact
housinghumanrights@gmail.com

PUBLIC PUSHBACK ON PRIVATISATIONS

Hi everybody,

To give you important background, below is an article from The Age newspaper, written in Oct 2015, when Victorian Labor first publicly declared its hand, regarding future plans to privatise Public Housing. This came as a bombshell to us after being assured that Labor would not follow down the same path as the Liberals before them.

Lots of spin of course.. I'm not going to insult your intelligence by counter-arguing and refuting some of the points made in the article. Nor will I comment on the individuals and organisations that support this.

Friends of Public Housing Victoria, continues to alert the general public regarding the very real threat to Public Housing, and the irrefutable fact that a robust Public Housing sector ( owned and managed by the government ) is essential if we are going to address the terrible problem of homelessness.

NO government has the mandate to dispose of Public Housing in this way - if they continue with this privatisation agenda, homelessness will continue to worsen.

The biggest threat to the future of Public Housing is that it will be taken over by private 'Community / Social Housing' companies. This is happening across Australia. There needs be be transparency about this.

And it's not working is it? 

Homelessness is getting worse all the time.

It's time to reverse the trend. Governments need to take back their responsibility.

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

https://www.theage.com.au/national/victoria/sweeping-changes-presented-on-public-housing-in-victoria-20151018-gkbxdp.html

Sweeping changes presented on public housing in Victoria

• October 18 2015

• Photo: Teagan Glenane

 

                                           

Public housing could be set for sweeping reforms if the Victorian Housing Department proceeds with proposals to hand over homes to community operators and sell "outdated" properties.

A department presentation to community housing groups raises the possibility of transferring public housing titles to community housing operators if they can raise standards for residents.

It also suggests the potential acceleration of a "sales program of outdated properties" that are no longer needed so that "capital reinvestment" can be increased.

Housing Minister Martin Foley said the government was intent on growing public housing and had no "sell-off agenda". "This government is investing more in growing social housing by using our assets and opportunities in a better way," he said.

The presentation foreshadows public housing estate redevelopments and identifying estates most in need of upgrades.

The document said a "transfer management program" was being considered and could lead to property title transfers after three to five years if performance standards were met. Those standards may include improving tenant satisfaction and exceeding maintenance benchmarks.

However, the document makes no mention of how many transfers may take place.

"Our clear position is that we are not looking at title transfer unless we can deliver a benefit to tenants and increase social housing units," Mr Foley said.

Community Housing Federation executive officer Lesley Dredge said transfers of public housing stock to community operators were happening around the country.

She said management transfers would allow community housing groups to improve property maintenance and community development. But Ms Dredge added that title transfers would give social housing tenants more stability and allow community housing groups to borrow money and invest in new supply. "Some have described title transfer as privatisation but this is misleading," Ms Dredge said. "In fact we are more rigorously regulated than state-managed public housing."

The presentation shows plans to expand the number of social housing dwellings, reduce "concentrations of disadvantage" and provide more housing options to people with disabilities.

Opposition housing spokesman Tim Bull urged the government to ensure any transfers to the community sector did not result in the most vulnerable people in the community losing priority. He said tenants' rent should not increase if the transfer plan proceeded.

Last year the previous Coalition government unveiled plans to transfer 12,000 public housing units to the community housing sector.

Victorian Public Tenants Association executive director Mark Feenane​ said he "embraced" the department's process. "We need more people thinking about the future of public housing," he said. "In looking at ways to grow public housing we need to be careful about shooting down ideas too quickly, we want careful consideration of options, not grandstanding."

University of NSW housing policy researcher Professor Hal Pawson described the presentation as "wide-ranging". "It is some form of strategy which you don't get very often in this field," he said.
Professor Pawson said both management and title transfers would allow residents to claim federal rent assistance as tenants of community housing providers.

Melbourne Greens MP Ellen Sandell said there was a housing crisis in Victoria. The public housing waiting list passed 34,000 in June this year. "Having a safe place to live is a fundamental human right," Ms Sandell said. She said the government should be investing more money in public housing properties and making "much needed improvements" to existing stock.

Council to Homeless Persons chief executive Jenny Smith said transferring management of social housing to community service providers had been linked to improved services, better efficiency and "community empowerment".

"The potential reforms to social housing should be one of the many requirements of a much-needed state-wide affordable housing strategy."

Sources
https://www.theage.com.au/national/victoria/sweeping-changes-presented-on-public-housing-in-victoria-20151018-gkbxdp.html

PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY INTO HOMELESSNESS

Hello Everybody,

Welcome back to our blog !! It's been a while, but we have a lot more posts now in the pipeline to keep you informed of the precarious situation regarding Public Housing.

There was a glitch in the system for a while where comments to this blog were not getting through, but this has now been rectified. To leave a comment, click on the Comments button at the end of the post and you will find a drop-down menu.

Below is our Submission to the Parliamentary Inquiry into Homelessness. We decided to keep it short and snappy. We are following it up with an attachment, which will address why we oppose the combined Waiting List, which was introduced as an administrative convenience but in reality is a  form of social engineering.. We go into this subject in further detail in our attachment.

Most citizens are deeply concerned about homelessness. 
You have until the 16 March to put in a submission. 
https://www.parliament.vic.gov.au/lsic-lc/inquiries/inquiry/976

We would like to thank Professor Guy Johnson and Wendy Lovell MP for their research and insights.

 
 SUBMISSION INTO PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY INTO HOMELESSNESS

We submit that the best solution to homelessness is Public Housing.

Arguments preferring Community/Social Housing at the expense of Public Housing are essentially ideological, unsupported by evidence or reason. Public Housing should be accepted as a necessary and permanent part of the housing mix. The money needed for Public Housing should not be siphoned into the expansion of Community/Social Housing.

Guy Johnson, Professor of Urban Housing and Homelessness RMIT and Director of Unison Housing Research Lab, in his evidence to this Committee, concedes when examining the factors preventing homelessness that Public Housing excelled : "what stood out was Public Housing. The magnitude of its effect was many times greater than anything else." ( p3 transcript )

This is too important a point to be glibly passed over. We should pause to appreciate its full weight.

The cherry-picking practice of prospective tenants by Community Housing Organisations, ( and we thank Wendy Lovell for clearly pointing this out ) is inherent to its business model. Cherry-picking, apart from being discriminatory, exacerbates the problem of homelessness. The Community Housing business model de-incentivises them from housing the poorest.

Professor Johnson has said that the dominant cause of homelessness is poverty. 
We would add that this is exactly why market solutions to housing and homelessness will not be adequate.

In addition, Public Housing is a healthy restraint on the cost of the high private rental market. The privatisation policy of transferring Public Housing titles and/or management to Community/Social Housing businesses, has had little to no public discussion and the ramifications of this paradigm shift have not been considered. It has been treated as a fait accompli.

 If there is to be continued government support for Community Housing, then it should be strictly separated from Public Housing as they have different functions. For example, the Combined Waiting List should be dismantled.

We urge the committee to take a fresh look at the arguments in favour of Public Housing. The support of a strong Public Housing Program used to have bipartisan support. We desperately need to recover that pragmatic bipartisanship.

Jeremy Dixon
Fiona Ross
Friends of Public Housing Victoria