PUBLIC HOUSING- GOING, GOING, GONE - IF WE DON'T ACT NOW !!

GOVERNMENT'S ABDICATION OF RESPONSIBILITY

Here is another response from Friends of Public Housing Victoria to the extremely disturbing report in The Age - (  'Sweeping Changes presented on Public Housing in Victoria'  19.10.15. )

I have copied and pasted The Age article below, in full, in case you missed it. It also includes a link which highlights the previous Liberal Coalition government's plan to hand over 12,000 Public Housing properties to Community Housing Organisations.

This Letter to the Editor was written by Gordon O'Reilly. He is a former insider from the management team within the Office of Housing who managed financial and other evaluations of the full range of public and so-called social housing options.

We now know that the Victorian ALP State government is 'considering' transferring the management of PUBLIC HOUSING with the view to handing over the TITLES. 

While nothing definite has been said, the Prahan Masterplan affecting four estates  indicates that the present Labor govt is continuing in the same direction of the former ousted Coalition Liberal Government - favouring and facilitating the agenda of property developers and big business - while abandoning any genuine commitment to public housing which is so desperately needed.

WHERE ARE LABOR'S CORE VALUES AND PRINCIPLES OF SOCIAL JUSTICE ?

We urge more people and more organisations to join us in opposition to this long term covert trend of undermining and destroying public housing by selling it off, and giving it away to private interests. 

                               

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

Letter to the Age 

Responding to Age News 19.10.15

I have managed the financial assessment of over 100 public housing projects.

In summary: Buildings age. Needs evolve. And needs are growing . .

What's now needed: building maintenance, and a renewed commitment to public housing. After decades of responsible, successful ownership of public housing, it seems that the government is more interested in disposing of real estate, than maintaining it.

This is despite the growing number of people below the poverty line and the growing number of homeless.

Evidently the modern Labor Party is quite happy to further abandon its traditional focus - helping those most in need.

Just like the party for the big end of town, the Andrews Labor government is much more interested in ditching normal government maintenance responsibilities, and turning over yet another big chunk of the public service/assets to organisations driven by hard efficiency, to run at a profit.

What's happening here to government compassion? Displaced by the almighty dollar.

What's the end result of the proposed phasing out of public housing? An increase in the number of people who are homeless.

As Derryn Hinch famously used to say - Shame!

Disgusted,

Ivanhoe
                       
                               _________________________________       

Sweeping changes presented on public housing in Victoria  

October 18, 2015

Benjamin Preiss

State Political Reporter for The Age

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."  

JEREMY'S LETTER TO THE AGE

             
  
IT'S OFFICIAL. In spite of all their denials, Victorian State Labor government is 'considering' handing over Public Housing to Community Housing Organisations.    
Here is my letter to The Age -  Jeremy Dixon

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


Lesley Dredge, Executive Officer of the Community Housing Federation doesn't think it's privatisation when public housing properties are handed over to private "community" operators such as she represents. ( News 19 Oct ) Well, it will do until privatisation comes along. If your local state high school was handed over to, say, Geelong Grammar then that would surely be privatisation, and the cases are parallel.

The Community Housing interests have done a brilliant job of making government workers and politicians of most persuasions see Community Housing's seizure of public assets as inevitable. Whatever their public relations people are paid- it is not enough.

But still it is privatisation we are talking about and no amount of spin can disguise it.
The result will be the disaster we have come to expect from privatisation.

Jeremy Dixon
Nth Carlton Public Housing flats

GETTING THE LANGUAGE RIGHT

 

Fairer Safer Housing in Victoria.

In June this year the Victorian government put out a consultation paper called 'Fairer Safer Housing in Victoria' as part of a Review of the Residential Tenancy Act.

 

Jeremy Dixon and I worked on a submission together.

Jeremy is my friend, neighbour and fellow public tenant.

He is working hard to get a new political party off the ground- PIBCI - Public Interests before Corportate Interests. He is also the convenor of Defend and Extend Public Housing. This post is based on what we wrote to the Victorian government.

 

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

Fairer Safer Housing in Victoria.

Some comments from the perspective of public housing tenants.

 

The Definitions within the document.

There is a serious problem regarding the definitions used in the consultation paper.

Firstly it states that 'social housing collectively refers to public housing and community housing.' This definition means that 'social housing' is an umbrella term which applies to both community and public housing.

 

To call both community and public housing 'social housing' is a confusing and obfuscating misuse of language since they are two very different housing models.

Furthermore social housing is also used as a synonym for community housing, as distinct from public housing. The definitions keep shifting making meaningful and sensible debate difficult.

Some of the distinctions between public and community housing. ( Why they shouldn't be lumped in together.)

-Only public housing is both government owned and government managed. Public housing provides security of tenure and rebated flexible rents which are all too often missing in community housing. Public housing does not require tenants to apply for Commonwealth Rent Assistance in order for the rents to be affordable.

Community housing, also sometimes called 'affordable housing' charges tenants up to 80% of market rents and requires ongoing huge amounts of taxpayer funded Commonwealth Rent Assistance in order for it to be 'affordable' for its tenants on low incomes. This goes directly to the Community Housing Organisation and serves as an operating subsidy. In practice, community housing often charge 75% of market rents which qualifies them for exemptions from GST.

-Public tenants are protected from unfair 'no cause' eviction notices. This is often not the case for community housing tenants and those in the private rental market. Unlike the situation with public housing, many community housing tenants are on fixed term contracts.

- Public housing provides housing to people on low incomes. 'Community housing' caters for people on low to moderate incomes. The report itself shows that the demographics of public and community housing are different which makes the logic of considering them as a bloc and conflating them for statistical purposes difficult to see.

Definition of Community Housing Organisations

The definition of 'community housing' in the government document is also problematic. It states that 'community housing is fully or partially funded by government to provide short-term crisis or transitional housing to people experiencing homelessness, as well as longer-term housing'.

We think this is an inadequate definition of 'community housing'. The business activities of community housing organisations go well beyond transitional housing for homeless people. Community housing organisations now own and/or manage over 18,000 properties in Victoria, including formerly publicly owned properties. Eight large community housing organisations ( housing associations ) are also major property developers.

 

Calling us by our right name.

Public tenants do not refer to themselves as 'social housing' tenants. To attempt to impose a change of name on us, indicates a complete lack of cultural sensitivity to the identity and voices of public tenants and our public housing communities.

It also disempowers public tenants by implying that 'public', 'community' and 'social' housing are all the same thing. This denies us necessary acurate information  regarding major paradigm shifts in housing policy that will impact on ourselves and our families. 

Big Picture Agenda? 

The privatisation - by stealth- of public housing. 
 

To label both public and community housing 'social housing' conceals the fundamental differences between public and community housing. It makes it very easy to transfer public housing to private interests ( and difficult to trace in government documents ).

What will be the impact on our society as a whole, if we keep on losing public housing properties through stock transfers, bulldozing and private selloffs?  Inadequate public housing results in increased homelessness. It is the collective human right of public tenants to partake in public life and we want to be part of this debate. 

 

Three Strikes Eviction Policies

We reject the notion that public tenants - and for that matter community housing tenants - need additional laws and threats such as a Three Strikes Eviction policy over and above the Residential Tenancy Act, which is already weighted on the side of the landlords' interests against the tenants. Why should people on low incomes be denied the same housing security enjoyed by other members of society?

Human Rights

Public tenants have the protection of the Human Rights Charter.

There was recently a review of the Human Rights Charter. The peak body for Community Housing Organisations -CHFV- disputed the applicability of the HRC- stating that it was not the original intention of the HRC that it apply to Community Housing Organisations. It went on to argue how its terms –ie being a public authority – did not apply to them.

As your report states, both public and community housing tenants are among the 'most vulnerable and disadvantaged' members of our society. It is essential that they have the full protection of the Human Rights Charter.

All changes in the context of housing should be made clear to public tenants and prospective tenants of community housing, especially in light of any proposed transfers of stock, management and tenancies. Public tenants need to be fully informed.

If your department is serious about establishing a fairer safer housing system for all Victorians, then we believe that it should acknowledge and rectify the ongoing disregard of the rights of public tenants by addressing these issues.

Finally the notion that the market can satisfy all housing needs is an ideological one and unsupported by evidence. 

The growth of community housing should not be at the expense of public housing. 

 

The government should accept and embrace the fact that the provision of a strong and viable public housing sector is a beneficial, necessary and permanent part of housing policy.

 

Rather than divest itself of this asset via stock transfers, we urge the Andrews Labor government to keep public housing in public hands, work with tenants to improve its delivery and management, and invest in more public housing to meet the growing demand.

Thankyou

 

Jeremy Dixon - Defend and Extend Public Housing

Fiona Ross - Friends of Public Housing Victoria 

                       ________________________ 

Sources
http://fairersaferhousing.vic.gov.au/renting

CELEBRATING OUR ELDERS- 'SEN YAO'

A few years ago, as part of a Community Development project, I did a series of stories celebrating our elders on the Public Housing estate where I live.

This was a project undertaken as part of celebrating Senior Citizens Festival which falls in October of each year. Since this time of year is with us again, I thought I would include some stories here.

The truth is, our communities are overwhelmingly very functional, socially inclusive, richly multicultural and diverse. 

Public housing, by its nature, epitomises community and we have strong community values. As a refugee neighbour from Sudan described it,  'Two hands can clap, but it takes a community to make a round of applause.'

These sound values, so often encountered in public housing, should be acknowledged, recognised and celebrated. Instead our communities are being constantly and unfairly denigrated, but that's another story..

Please meet my beautiful neighbours  ...

 

This is Sen Yao Lau. She is ninety four years old.

In Chinese her name means 'virtuous'. She is one of three children. Sen Yao Lau comes from the Qantong province in China.

Her father was a farmer. He was a very kind man. Everybody in his village would agree. He always tried to help those in trouble. If he was on his way to Yum Cha and he met a beggar, he would give his money to the beggar, turn around and come back home again.

Sen Yao remembers as a child walking a long way to school. In those days in China, women were illiterate and most had no education whatsoever. Sen Yao was very lucky. She had six years of schooling. She learnt calligraphy. At home her mother also taught her how to knit. The family had a small garden and grew all their own vegetables.

She was eighteen years old when she married in China. It was an arranged marriage. Sen Yau did not see her husband until their wedding day. Luckily he was a good husband; a gentle person. He was a carpenter. Together they had six children.

Of course they have all grown up now. Two of her adult children have settled in America, two live in Australia and two are still in China. Sen Yau has thirteen grandchildren.

Sen Yau and her husband were in their sixties, when their children helped them to emigrate to Australia. They lived in a high rise Public Housing flat in Fitzroy, and then moved onto the Princes Hill Estate. Sen Yao has lived on this estate for eighteen years. She likes living here very much. Sadly she lost her husband seven years ago.

In her flat she has a little Buddhist shrine and every morning she lights incense and she prays. Every day she likes to get some exercise. She weeds her little garden. She walks a lot and catches the tram into the city. Sometimes she visits her best friend who is 82 and also from China. They might go to Yum Cha together or shop at the Victoria Market.

Sen Yau understands very little English and gestures a lot to make herself understood. She is very kind and loving, and always seems to be smiling. When I visited her, she gave me flowers and herbs from her garden and lollies from her pocket.

Sen Yau cooks Chinese food; mainly vegetables and rice. She only eats meat occasionally. Her son brings her Chinese videos to watch on the television. She understands the weather report and every evening without fail, she checks what the weather is going to be like the following day.

She misses her grandchildren in China and the USA. She still enjoys knitting and makes hats, jumpers and scarves for her family and friends. Before I left, she made me an Origami paper crane to take home with me.

PRAHRAN MASTERPLAN

The Prahran Master Plan

WHAT DO WE LIKE ABOUT THE PLAN?

A number of things are good. Essentially, overdue contemporary urban design and building practises are adopted:

1. New buildings have their orientation to the sun optimised; and meet current building standards for energy efficiency
2. Roofs are used for garden space and/ or solar panels
3. Most of the 2000 odd new units will have direct street entrances
4. In some new units, contemporary levels of access (or potential future access) for the disabled is planned.
5. A much more efficient use of these very valuable pieces of inner-city real estate. Specifically, a *** very large number of new housing units - eg, in Horace Petty – an increase in housing units of THREE times!
6. Community facilities appear to be commensurate with the BIG increase in unit numbers
7. Some on-site shops will be fitted in, and a café
8. Car parking is provided for. Possibly commensurate with the very big increase in household numbers. 
   
9. Many trees will be retained

In summary: the adoption of current, reasonable design principles.

However these improvements are only positives if they are equitably shared by all residents - both private and public. It should be made clear that there is no discrimination- direct or implicit.


WHAT IS NOT GOOD?

Most of the existing open public space will be built over.


So far, so good.

WHAT IS LACKING?

Some specific concerns
* At a recent community consultation session it was stated that the walk-ups are targeted for demolition and the high-rise conversions will require that the tenants  be relocated.

* Further, Melbourne University urban geographer Dr Shaw said “it appeared the estates would lose three- and four-bedroom units to be replaced by housing for singles”. This will displace families.
 
Despite the planning process being underway for at least two years, no statement of DHHS's intentions for the tenants who are going to be affected has been forthcoming. According to at least three attendees at a consultation session as recently as mid September, many of these important issues which will disrupt people's lives remain up in the air.


Dr Shaw has also stated (The Age, August 24) that: "introducing private residents would not necessarily increase their interaction with the public housing tenants. The whole rationale for introducing the public private social mix on these sites doesn't stack up".


The bigger picture
* This is a BIG collection of projects. Hence it is a golden OPPORTUNITY to address, at least in part, the chronic SHORTAGE of public housing. After all, that’s why the estates were created!

What is missing? 
THE BIG PICTURE – the Masterplan’s KEY QUANTITATIVE IMPACTS
* * Obviously, these projects are LONG-TERM. What is totally lacking from the Masterplan, is ANY projection of the corresponding long-term public housing DEMAND!


Pictures and good design principles - there are pages and pages of them. 
 
Also shown clearly is the large number of new units. For the precinct, new apartments (give or take a range) total around 2,000. 
 
There is a simple bland statement that in public housing units, there will be “no net LOSS”. . Why, when there is room for 2,000 ADDITIONAL HOUSEHOLDS, is there NO STATEMENT about using the project to provide any INCREASE in public housing??


WHERE IS THE RELEVANT ANALYSIS WHICH QUANTIFIES THE NEED FOR PUBLIC HOUSING?

The latest available (June 2015) DHHS data shows official waiting lists, eg:

• Within Prahran’s official DHHS area, waiting are 1805 official applicants, ie single households or families. Counting multi-person applicants, the number of people waiting, would exceed 1805.
  
• In the broader local region of DHHS’s South Division, the waiting list is over 10,000 applicants.
  

Across the state, there are well over 30,000 applicants are waiting for public housing.  Where, ANYWHERE - is the PLAN to address their needs?  
 
In this prosperous country, how many more years should people have to wait, for the basic need of housing - a roof over their heads?


And what of course, is NOT in the waiting lists, is the number of homeless people. Without a home. 

Surely, as land is available, a decent society endeavours to address that urgent need !?
 

Across the state, homeless people are estimated (per Homelessness Australia data) to number over 22,000. Where is the state’s Masterplan for them??

Victoria’s unfilled real need for basic public housing could well be more than 50,000 people.
 
That is at present. But it gets worse. 
 
Prahran’s Horace Petty Estate, which was completed in 1967, has provided a lifespan of close on 50 years. 
 
In just the last nine years, the same Homelessness data shows that the number of Victorians without a home has grown by more than 20 %. That’s an average increase of over 3 % pa. 
 
If that were to be miraculously be slowed to only 2 % pa – really only about the likely rate of population growth, over a conservative lifespan of only 30 years of lowcost housing, Victoria’s homeless will become over 40,000. At that rate, over 40 years – less than the current age of the estate – our homeless could become over 50,000.

If the current trend simply continues, over only 30 years, Victoria’s homeless will total nearly 60,000. Over 40 years, our homeless would become over 80,000.


Where is the Masterplan to address the needs of desperate people – those on the waiting list and the homeless?

THE BOTTOM LINE
(A) PEOPLE

The redevelopment of Prahran’s public housing estates, for the first time in more than five decades, provides a wonderful opportunity to address, ie decrease the chronic backlog of desperate people needing public housing. These people make up some of the most disadvantaged in our society. 
 
Our Government needs a decent plan to deal with the massive and burgeoning housing crisis. The Prahran Masterplan fails to address it.


(B) MONEY
There are of course important financial implications. Where are the numbers (or even ranges) for this aspect? No doubt, under 'commercial in confidence' they are not made available. So in the absence of public information, to assess this, our only option is to estimate this crucial information. What is the likely profit on the sales of the New Units and Highrise Conversions?

The Masterplan states "no net loss of public housing". It is not made clear whether the overall number of bedrooms will even be retained. 

Given the absence of any statement about what number of the new dwellings might be sold, let’s do a very simple scenario. 
 
What the land and properties would be worth ... Let’s assume a simple mid-point - that half the additional housing is rented out, and the other half is sold to private owners. 
 
If half the additional housing is sold, and there were say $50,000 average profit per unit sold, a calculation using the quantities from the Masterplan shows that the PROFIT could total between $48 MILLION and $67 MILLION. Being Prahran, that is quite easily conservative.

Whatever the profit turns out to be - and how much of the profit from the sale (?) of this PRIME REAL ESTATE - which (for now at least) is PUBLICLY OWNED by the Victorian Government - will be used to invest in a far greater percentage of public housing in Prahran - of the standards outlined in the Masterplan?

Gordon O'Reilly

 

  

QUAKER GROUP OPPOSES PUBLIC HOUSING STOCK TRANSFERS

We thank the Quakers for their support

The Religious Society of Friends - Northern Suburbs Meeting - sent us a message of support in which they urge the government not to transfer any more public housing properties to community housing organisations. 

Please read on.. 

   On behalf of the Northern Suburbs Local Meeting (NSLM)

of the Religious Society of  Friends (Victoria).

        

‘The meeting expresses its support for the provision of adequate public housing in Victoria. We note with concern the report in Fairfax media that in May 2015 the total waiting list for public housing in Victoria was 33,900 (The Age 10 July 2015). 

Given the extreme hardship caused by homelessness and housing insecurity we urge the State and Federal governments to ensure that the current stock of public housing is significantly increased in order to reduce the number of people on the public housing waiting list.

In particular, we urge governments not to transfer any public housing properties to community /social housing organisations. Instead we urge that additional funding be provided for public housing and community / social housing in order to increase the supply of affordable and secure publicly funded housing.’

The Religious Society of Friends – commonly known as Quakers - had its origin in England in the seventeenth century. It sprang from the religious experience of George Fox, but numbers of Seekers had already separated themselves from the churches and were meeting together for worship without any ordained priests or ministers, and without the use of any rites such as baptism or the eucharist. The basis of their worship was silently waiting upon God.

taken from their website            http://www.quakers.org.au/?page=A2

COMMUNITY HOUSING AND THE HUMAN RIGHTS CHARTER

You might be very surprised to learn this.

It is not widely known -and yet it ought to be ..
It is a matter of public interest.

Recently there was a review into the Victorian Human Rights Charter.

Community Housing Federation of Victoria ( CHFV ) - the peak body for Community Housing Organisations has put in a submission in which they dispute whether the Human Rights Charter should apply to them.

CHFV claims that it was not the original intention of the Human Rights Charter, at the time of its introduction, that it apply to Community Housing Organisations. The peak body goes on to argue why the term 'public authority' should not apply to them.

Only governments and public authorities are legally bound to comply with the Human Rights Charter. Therefore this is an extremely disturbing position taken by the peak body of Community Housing which owns and /or manages over 18,000 properties in Victoria.

It is a legal argument of great significance and serious ramifications. After all we are talking here about people's right to housing.

If Community Housing Organisations are not deemed to be Public Authorities then they would be exempt from the need to comply with the Human Rights Charter when dealing with their tenants.

Depending on the outcome of the review, many vulnerable people who are presently living in Community Housing could lose the essential protection of the Charter.

In its submission to the Review, Legal Aid Victoria also discusses this issue and stresses the importance of the Human Rights Charter in protecting and enforcing the rights of disadvantaged people against powerful agencies. It gives an example where potential breaches of the Charter were brought to the attention of a Community Housing Provider which claimed that it did not consider itself to be a 'public authority' and therefore the Human Rights Charter did not apply to them.

Interestingly, one of the purposes of the Human Rights Charter Review is to decide on this very issue ie. 'clarifying the provisions regarding public authorities, including the identification of public authorities and the content of their human rights obligations.'

With so much at stake riding on this decision we can only hope that this 'independent review' is not about to weaken the Charter or its application…

In light of any future proposed mass transfers of thousands of public housing stock to 'community housing' businesses – the outcome of this review of the Human Rights Charter is also of great interest to public tenants.

In Victoria the largest group of people making up our public tenant communities have some form of disability- physical or mental. The government knows full well the documented level of genuine disadvantage of people living in public housing.

The government has a Duty of Care to its tenants and part of that duty is to ensure their ongoing protection under the Charter.

What is made abundantly clear in CHFV's submission is the tension experienced between their business interests on the one hand and their social obligations under the Charter on the other.

Friends of Public Housing Victoria has maintained all along that market based 'social' or 'community housing' is not the answer to providing housing for low income people and will not solve, but rather exacerbate the housing crisis. This is evidenced in countries where 'social housing' has been implemented and has failed, resulting in gross profiteering and an epidemic of homelessness.

Regardless of whether Community Housing Providers and Associations qualify as Public Authorities -and many would argue that they definitely do - they should nevertheless have voluntarily embraced their legal obligations under the Charter anyway, in line with progressive global trends.

Community Housing Organisations want to take over public housing properties and/or the tenancies of many people with high and complex needs – and at the same time they argue that they should be exempt from any legal obligation to comply with the Human Rights Charter by challenging their definition as a public authority …??

For heaven's sake, things just keep going from bad to worse in this country when it comes to the housing rights of people at the lowest end of the economic scale.

The outcome of this review will be tabled on 1^st October 2015.

We will keep you posted.

                                         ******************

In this blog we try to cover housing issues from the perspective of public tenants and in support of public housing. Many of these issues are not being covered in the mainstream media.

                                         *****************

Sources :

https://myviews.justice.vic.gov.au/2015-review-of-the-charter-of-human-rights

See Heading 'What other people have said'

Submission by Community Housing Federation Victoria

= submission no. 45 ( p.4-5 )

Submission by Victorian Legal Aid

= submission no. 93 ( p11.)

http://www.premier.vic.gov.au/review-to-strengthen-victorias-charter-of-human-rights

http://www.humanrightscommission.vic.gov.au/index.php/the-charter 

http://www.dhs.vic.gov.au/facs/bdb/fmu/service-agreement/4.departmental-policies-procedures-and-initiatives/4.9-victorian-charter-of-human-rights-and-responsibilities