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.
| ||||||||||||
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
Yes, I agree with this submission to the Parliamentary Inquiry into Homelessness that the conjoined waiting list covering both public housing & social housing by non-government associations should be discontinued. Far from aiding those most in need in fact it has the opposite effect. The non-government housing associations can still cherry-pick prospective tenants & naturally it is good business sense for them to take in those more capable of paying rent & less troublesome. The truly disadvantaged are only accommodated by government public housing. Thus the previous traditional working class communities in public housing exist less and less today. Furthermore housing associations if you analyse their past tenancy records indicate very poor take up of genuine disadvantaged and homeless applicants.
ReplyDeletePublic Housing should be kept as public housing and should have their own, very separate, waiting list. It is not the same as Community Housing and should not be confused as such by employing the arbitrary “Social Housing “ umbrella! Nor should public housing real estate stock be handed over to Community Housing agencies but should remain in public hands!
ReplyDelete