SERCO CIRCLING AROUND PUBLIC HOUSING IN NSW

Dr Joe Toscano
Public Interests Before Corporate Interests -PIBCI

The privatisation of Public Housing can happen in two ways. Title transfer, or else outsourcing the management of Public Housing -which can precede transferring the titles down the track. ( see Labor's former Asset Conversion Strategy in Victoria. )

Says Jeremy Dixon, public tenant activist, "This is how it is often done. First the management is transferred and then later, presumably to minimise any resistance to the agenda of privatisation, the titles are handed over."

This blogpost features two organisations committed to fighting the neo-liberal madness of
privatising our essential public assets and services. And it covers a scary development in NSW.

In VIC we have - Public Interests Before Corporate Interests - PIBCI

Quotes by Convenor, Dr Joe Toscano on privatising Public Housing in Victoria.

"Labor will be committing political suicide if they continue down this path. This is an insane policy and we need to ensure that it is never enacted or announced. It is madness to place public housing in the hands of corporate housing. Labor needs to understand that the Victorian Greens have endorsed plans not to privatise public housing. The Victorian Andrews government will lose more seats to the Greens if it continues to give away Public Housing."

"This is a struggle we cannot afford to lose- but it is a winnable struggle. I implore people to get involved"

In NSW - Public Service Association of NSW
Quote by Anne Gardiner - PSA General secretary
"Equal access to public services is the basis of a civil society. The Public Service Association of NSW will fight the Baird Government's ideology of privatising our public services"

On the privatisation of Public Housing in NSW the PSA says-

"In NSW, access to affordable and secure housing is a huge problem. There is a long waiting list for public housing, and the Government is selling off dwellings and transferring others to community housing. In 2016, the Government released a policy on social housing that expands the role for community housing and the private sector. However, this will not meet demand for housing now or in the future. The only winners will be investors and developers, and not the people of NSW.
Instead, the Government is shirking its obligations to the most disadvantaged members of society and is sending them away far from areas that have opportunities for work and services. Social housing will not be spread evenly over NSW, but will be concentrated in those areas that property is cheapest – on the outskirts of Sydney and in regional locations."

The problems for public housing in NSW are large and complex. However, only the Government has the resources and access to services required to provide our most disadvantaged with a home and services to keep them safe in their housing.

"Social housing experiments in the UK involving the private sector have been disastrous, and we must ensure that we don’t repeat them here. Public housing and profits don’t mix."

PSA on its website includes a link to the position paper by Serco- yep Serco- the folk who run the Detention Centres - and who are now expressing an interest in taking over Public Housing in NSW !!

"Serco has told the Baird government that community housing providers are too small to be efficient, and the state government should follow the British model of outsourcing to larger management companies"

Oh the irony !! Instead of joining us in fighting to retain and expand public housing, many well-meaning, not-for-profit NGOs and charities lobbied hard for the NSW government to hand over its responsibility for the provision of public housing, and rejoiced about this development at the beginning of the year.

Now it looks possible that they might be locked out of the really major developments as huge and ruthless global corporate players move in. Like Serco!!  They might find themselves limited to being awarded the tenders of relatively small housing projects ...

http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/baird-governments-public-housing-plan-brings-joy-to-community-sector-20160124-gmcu8s.html  http://tinyurl.com/zj6bx9s

Getting away from the housing industry bubble and its follies for the moment -
Good old members of the general public made some spot-on comments when this story broke. http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/detention-operator-serco-eyes-nsw-public-housing-20160812-gqr1ya.html

Here are some responses from the social media site Reddit.

Says mugbluey -

窗体顶端

"And the public and governments will just accept Serco with their eyes closed. England here we come, we destroyed the Australian dream of owning homes now we want to jail our own people in housing commission estates built by private prison operators. We have a bizarre sense of community!"

窗体底端

窗体顶端

 'Revoran' says about Serco - "Jesus Christ keep them out. Out out out out."

'Myne' offers this  "Serco exists entirely in the niche created by outsourcing previously government functions. It is the ultimate parasite of neoliberal ideology. It is the rule that proves why these functions were assumed by the state in the first place".

'lumpinator' - "For fuck sake don't politicians get embarrassed about the obvious corruption? It is very sad that the average Joe is completely oblivious to what is happening."

窗体底端

窗体顶端

'Scuzz Monster' responds,  'Why would they be embarrassed? They're psychopaths, the media won't call them out and as you said - Joe Average is oblivious.'

robertbruceAus  "Future headline. "Royal Commission- Deaths in Public Housing"

 'MaevaM'   'i do not think it should be legal for governments to deal with serco'

窗体底端

窗体底端

窗体顶端

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

Serco is not yet involved in the first phase of the privatisation plans in NSW, but Greens Housing spokesperson for Newtown in NSW, Jenny Leong MP last month (Oct '16 ) warned that,
"Despite Serco’s international reputation, the NSW Government has made it clear that the door is wide open for Serco to step in to the public housing sector in NSW." 

"We know that Serco has met with the Minister for Social Housing and the Minister for Finance, Services and Property. We also know that Serco are already involved in public housing contracts in other countries."  "Serco are infamous for their operation of Australian offshore detention centres, which have been the subject of many complaints of human rights breaches."

Any other statements of opposition to this from Labor, the Churches, other political parties and senators in NSW?  The silence is deafening.


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

This is a nationwide struggle.
Please get behind your public tenant neighbours in this attack on class.
Defend and Extend Public Housing.
And get involved!

Campaign email address -  housing.humanrights@gmail.com

Want to learn more about Serco? Here is a good place to start
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KaytzykSQzk

Sources

https://www.facebook.com/pibci2/

http://www.secretselloff.com.au/

http://www.secretselloff.com.au/housing/

https://nsw.greens.org.au/news/nsw/nsw-treasurer-fails-rule-out-serco-involvement-public-housing

http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/baird-governments-public-housing-plan-brings-joy-to-community-sector-20160124-gmcu8s.html  http://tinyurl.com/zj6bx9s

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-01-27/yeomans-commonwealth-should-take-lead-on-social-housing-policy/7118172

Comments are good following this article eg‘Baird's privatising public assets again. But apparently it's progressive because the likes of Mission Australia get more taxpayer funding for their operations.’

'BUYER BEWARE' OR 'DUTY OF CARE' ?

ANECDOTE

Friends of Public Housing Vic were told the following story.

A young mother was living in public housing with a disabled husband and a small child. Since her housing no longer met her family's needs, she applied to transfer to another more suitable public housing property.

She approached her Public Housing Officer, who suggested that she consider moving into  'Community Housing'.

The Housing Officer gave her the address of a Community Housing Organisation and told her that Community Housing is 'much the same as public housing' - the only difference is that she will pay 30% of her income instead of the 25% as is the case in Public Housing.

Her Housing Officer really talked up Community Housing, saying that if she was offered a place, she should 'grab it with both hands' -  it would be too good an opportunity to pass up.

She attended an interview with a staff member of a Community Housing Organisation. She asked about the rent and was told that the rent would be calculated at 30% of the family's income.

( This is the percentage of household income that her family would pay towards the rent. The actual rents can be up to 80% of market rents or even more, but is often set at 75% of market rents which allows Community Housing Organisations to claim charitable status and tax breaks. For the rents to be 'affordable' the family would then need to apply for Commonwealth Rent Assistance (CRA)  and this amount would go directly to the Community Housing landlord. No CRA whatsoever is required in Public Housing. It is important to always keep in mind just how much the taxpayer is subsidising 'Community /Social /Affordable Housing' !!  

 

- Or how precarious the whole thing is!  Imagine if CRA is one day slashed? Community Housing has stated that access to CRA is 'crucial' for their businesses to be financially sustainable. Mick de Brenni -Housing Minister for Queensland addressed the issue of unacceptable risk when enumerating his reasons for scrapping plans to privatise Public Housing in Queensland. )

Back to our anecdote - The young mother (and carer) asked if the rent could go up as a Community Housing tenant. She was told that 'well, the private sector always has the right to raise the rent.' She then said, 'So you cannot guarantee that the rent will always remain at 30% of income'. The Housing provider agreed that they could not guarantee it.

Later she learned that if she signed a lease with Community Housing she would lose her place on the public housing list (including transfer lists). The option of public housing for her family would be closed.

She talked it over with her husband, and they decided that they could not afford to lose the protections which only public housing provides. Instead of moving into Community Housing they continued to apply for a transfer within the public housing system.

Her story has a happy ending. Her family has been transferred to a more suitable public housing property and they are happy living there.

Below are other very important differences between Public and 'Community Housing' which are not made clear in documents or in the inadequate Fact-Sheets available. The differences between the two housing models are glossed over or simply not mentioned.

1. Public tenants ( and other prospective tenants ) should not assume that if their household income falls, their rents will be readjusted and reduced to 30% in Community Housing. ( At the end of the day, they are businesses ) This essential protection of flexible rents linked to household income which Public Housing provides- can be  absent in Community Housing, or replaced with a 'hardship provision'- which means that reduced rents are put in place for a very limited amount of time. In the present climate where welfare entitlements are under attack, the consistent protection of flexible rents that Public Housing provides, is what literally keeps people off the streets.Tenants who are told that Community (social ) Housing is 'much the same' or 'similar' to Public Housing might not think to question this.

2. Tenants in Community Housing can be put on limited contracts - as little as 3, 6 or 12 months.

3. In Community Housing, additional service fees can be charged for maintenance. Conditions for utilities such as water, can differ from what is in place in public housing. All these changes represent hidden costs which all add up.

4. A Community Housing tenant might need to contribute financially for any modifications to her  unit needed due to a disability. Otherwise if she cannot afford to do so, she might have to either forgo these necessary modifications, or move out.

5. When the contract expires, and tenants apply for a new lease, they might well face unanticipated changes.

6. There can be a loss of access to car-parking which can have a huge impact on tenants' lives.

7. 'No cause' evictions apply in Community / Social / Affordable housing. 

We are hearing many anecdotes such as the story of the family above, which point to a disturbing and systemic issue.

Public tenants are being told partial and misleading information. They are being encouraged to relinquish their rights as Public Housing tenants, and to transfer to Community Housing without being able to access the facts they need to make an 'informed decision' about something as important as housing for themselves and their families.

Some tenants have reported that they believe they were 'tricked' and 'deceived' about aspects of their new leases that they were not told of beforehand.

These are often people with disabilities or they can be elderly pensioners. ( statistically these are the two largest groups that make up Public Housing communities )

Public Housing communities are also very multicultural, so English can be a second language. For public tenants whose first language is English, literacy issues are not uncommon either. All these factors put tenants at a very real disadvantage where careful reading and understanding of the terms of a new lease are so very important.

On top of this, these people can be experiencing desperate circumstances, which means they are more likely to sign a lease with Community /Social Housing without careful consideration of the ramifications. They can lack the resources they need to understand and defend their rights. They often do not have the money to afford professional help or are afraid to speak out.

Finally- sad to say- public tenants can be easy targets when it comes to being manipulated.

Many public tenants are very trusting. They believe whatever they are told by their Housing Officers, governments, political representatives, and the organisations funded to represent them- who are all working with a common agenda.

 Public tenants are being told that possible future transferring of their homes and tenancies is a 'very good thing' - without being informed of the rights and protections they stand to lose ...

GREENS OPPOSE TRANSFER OF PUBLIC HOUSING TO COMMUNITY ( SOCIAL ) HOUSING

EXCELLENT SPEECH BY ELLEN SANDELL - 
VIC STATE GREENS -
SPOKESPERSON FOR HOUSING.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mFAbPohwazM

"I rise to speak on the urgent need to increase public housing stock and to ensure it remains owned and managed by the Government"

"We've heard some worrying reports that the Andrews Labor government may be intending to privatise a significant proportion of Public Housing in Victoria."

"I'm worried that they may want to transfer a large amount of public housing to private 'community' or 'affordable housing' groups. While many community housing providers do great work, they should be supported in addition to public housing not instead of it."

"While we need to increase all forms of affordable housing, we absolutely must not reduce our public housing stock"

"The government should not wash its hands of public housing. Too many people rely on it. It needs to remain an essential part of what the government does."
                                                  ---------

Friends of Public Housing Victoria -FOPHV- will be taking this message on to our Public Housing estates - getting to speak to as many of our fellow public tenants as possible - explaining to them their rights - and letting them know of The Victorian Greens position on Public Housing.

LABOR  - HANDS OFF PUBLIC HOUSING !! 

Next Rally- organised by PIBCI
                    Endorsed by FOPHV and HPU
                    this Thursday 10th November
                    11.30 -1.30
                    Parliament House steps
                    Spring St- Melbourne 

                            
More rallies and a Barbeque / Celebration planned on a major Public Housing Estate
with refugee public tenants speaking on the importance of Public Housing. Details to follow. 









Public Interests Before Corporate Interests- PIBCI

   







Friends of Public Housing Victoria

Homeless Persons Union

YOU CAN'T EVICT SOMEONE FOR BARRACKING FOR COLLINGWOOD!

Community Housing is defined by their peak body- Community Housing Federation of Victoria -CHFV- as providing secure, long-term housing which offers a 'more responsive management' than public housing. This is a argument they put forward, when wanting to take over public housing.

There are now voices challenging these claims and the glossy PR of Community /Social Housing - though rarely are these voices coming from those working within the housing industry, which is to be expected. We have found the media unwilling to ask the hard questions of Community Housing Organisations.

In fact Community ( social ) Housing now comprises of at least 39 separate businesses - including nine major property developers. Obviously they will differ in their motivations and operations.

However at the end of the day they are all businesses and outsourcing management and transferring titles is privatisation - ( it is misleading to suggest otherwise )

Below is a link to an article published by CHFV in a newsletter. It discusses management practices employed by some Community Housing Organisations that are extremely dubious - and highlights that when housing is managed by Community Housing Organisations rather than Public Housing, there is a serious loss of security and rights.

It discusses the 'no-cause' eviction clause under Section 263 and 288 of the Residential Tenancies Act whereby tenants can be evicted without the landlord having to specify a reason.

Public Housing tenants are protected from arbitrary evictions like this. 

The 'no-cause' or 'no-grounds' eviction procedure requires a Notice to Quit which gives the tenant 120 days to leave. If the tenant has not left after that time, then the next step is for the landlord to obtain an Order of Possession of the premises.

Tenant advocates and some welfare groups are very critical of this piece of legislation. Shelter, a peak-body for tenants on low incomes, says that "without grounds' evictions underline and emphasise the power differential and result in tenants trading off their rights against the fear of eviction'
'A Better Lease on Life-2010 Shelter'

Apart from the 120 Day Notice to Quit, another way to evict a tenant without the need to supply a reason, which is discussed in the article, is when there is a Fixed Term Tenancy.

Incidentally Fixed Term tenancies are the only way a tenant can be evicted 'without grounds' in Tasmania. It is the only state in Australia where 120 Day 'no cause' Eviction Notices have been strictly curtailed.

The article, 'A Question on Notice' ( link below ) written by an industry advisor to Community Housing managers on VCAT issues, addresses this.

It states that one 'advantage' of putting tenants on fixed-term tenancies ( as low as 6, 4 and 3 months ) is that it enables the landlord to issue Notices to Quit which coincide with the end of the fixed term.

Another tactic for landlords wanting to evict a tenant is to simply raise the rents to market rates!

The article goes on to say that Community( aka social ) Housing landlords should not arbitrarily 'move on' people with a 'difficult personality' but that 120 day no-cause eviction notices should only be used when there is a 'genuine problem'. Indeed - how disturbing and depressing that these practices occur.

We have heard reports by Community Housing tenants, very critical of certain practices by some Community Housing Organisations, and we urge Minister Foley to start listening to the reality of people's experiences. He has a Duty of Care to do so.

Finally, the article discusses the practice of 'rolling eviction notices.' As if 'no-cause' evictions are not unfair enough as it is, some Community Housing Providers are going one step further and issuing rolling- ie continuous-eviction notices to every resident every 120 days !?

Imagine the implications of that...  Eviction notices can be used as a form of social control and intimidation. Residents in boarding houses, who have done nothing to deserve it, are constantly having the threat of eviction- and subsequent homelessness- hanging over their heads.
 
The author, who believes it is best that these notices be avoided, advises that the practice of rolling eviction notices "would likely be shot down in flames in the Supreme Court under the Victorian Charter of Human Rights."

He says that when considering 120 day Notices to Quit, there should always be a valid reason for it and quips, "You are not just evicting them because they are a Collingwood supporter. At least I hope this vile practice has stopped"

In spite of its faults as a landlord, the Victorian state government has also had a history of being a fair and compassionate landlord. The Department of Human Services employed staff who provided specialised support for people whose tenancies were at risk - so they could remain safely housed rather than be evicted into homelessness.

Unethical practices like 'rolling eviction notices' were never part of the way the government operated.

Why has no-one blown the whistle on this Human Rights abusive practice before now?
This is a shocking way to treat vulnerable people.

http://www.chfv.org.au/uploads/1808-11_CHFV-newsletter-NOV13_FA-LR.pdf