Total Pageviews

Tuesday, 17 March 2020

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

Wednesday, 11 March 2020

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









 






Housing Minister Martin Foley says the government has no sell-off agenda.
                                           
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

Tuesday, 3 March 2020

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


 Image result for homelessness

Saturday, 31 August 2019

BILLIONS ALLOCATED BUT NOT BEING SPENT ON DISABILITY


There are functions which rightly belong, and should remain in government hands. 
If the politicians take their Duty of Care to all Victorians seriously, they should not take their hands off the wheel ....

Another example of private outsourcing, this time regarding NDIS applications...
The Federal Government has not allocated enough staff needed to roll it out, and contractors are being used instead to implement the scheme. 

 At an alarming rate, Australia is slipping further and further away from being an egalitarian country.

The following post is in three parts. A quote from Phillip Coorey,Political Editor of the Financial Review explaining the massive underspending by Government on those with serious disabilities,a first hand account of a meeting chaired by Bill Shorten to gather feedback on the NDIS, and finally the scandal of NDIS providers living high on the hog, while disabled people are utterly frustrated, and cannot get their needs met.
 

Firstly let's clarify the terms.
'National Disability Insurance Scheme'  =  NDIS.
National Disability Insurance Agency which administers the NDIS = NDIA
How does it work ? Individuals with disabilities, their carers or allied professionals apply to the NDIA for a ‘package’. This consists of  a yearly, sometimes a 2 year plan, tailored to the specific needs of the client.
---------------------
The National Disability Insurance Scheme  has been MASSIVELY under-spending the Commonwealth money allocated to it! This money then went back into Commonwealth Consolidated Revenue.
Severe criticisms levelled at the government prompted a last minute fiscal decision.   
Says Phillip Coorey, Political Editor of the Financial Review in March 2019 
The federal government has dampened criticism its budget surplus will be boosted by money that should have been spent on the disabled after it increased National Disability Insurance Scheme payments by about  $3.5 billion.
As a result of the extra money being rolled out, the underspend on the NDIS – money that was allocated but not rolled out – has been reduced to a forecast $1.6 billion over the next four years, the budget papers will show. Had the last-minute spending decision not been made, the underspend over four years would have been about $5 billion.
The government is facing criticism from the disability sector, the Labor states and federal Labor that the 2019-20 budget surplus to be unveiled on Tuesday could be due largely to money that was not spent on the disabled.
GUEST POST - ( wishes to remain anonymous )
ATTENDING A FORUM IN BENDIGO TO PROVIDE FEEDBACK ON NDIS

"I am aware of the difficulties faced by many public housing tenants and those on public housing waiting lists. Having grown up in a Public Housing  property, I understand the need to save it as a sorely needed and scandalously scarce public resource which is why I follow and support this blog. I live in Bendigo, which has over 116,000 residents and over 1,500 public housing residences. 
But also spare a thought, dear reader, for another subset of people facing a different set of difficulties -many of them also live in public housing. These folk are people with a disability and their carers, usually their parents. 
The newly introduced Commonwealth Government National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) was brought in to provide support for people with severe disabilities. It has been running for a few years now. Although I support it in principle as a very good initiative, it also has a lot of teething problems as can be seen at a recent NDIS Feedback Forum in Bendigo on 19 August 2019, organised by Bill Shorten ( Shadow Minister for the NDIS ).
The room was packed, and Bill quipped that he was still seeking counselling for the recent ALP loss at the Federal election. The purpose of the forum was to gather feedback on how the NDIS was working, to add to a forthcoming Parliamentary Review to improve service delivery. There was only time to take responses from 15 participants. Many others with their hands up, were not able to voice their experiences in the short time provided. There were many distraught mothers in the room. 

Here are some of their stories -
1-    A mother of a daughter with a disability, who is an NDIS client, said that the first year plan was rushed and inadequately delivered, and her second year plan for her daughter was rejected by NDIA. The mother appealed through the Rights Information and Advocacy Centre (R.I.A.C) in Bendigo which she said was a lifeline. She finally won her case. However she is still awaiting a standing frame for her daughter after 2 years.
2-   Another mother told how the National Disability Insurance Agency (NDIA) who administer the Scheme rejected her disabled son’s claim. She went to Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT), and fought for 10 months. She got a lawyer who took the NDIA to court. Suddenly after 12 months, the NDIA gave way and allowed her son’s claim. The lawyer took on her case pro-bono, so it did not cost her.
3-    A wife advised that her husband had a genetic disorder, and had been waiting 4 years for NDIS equipment. Her husband was under 50 and had complex needs. No comprehensive care was available for him. She told the room that the NDIA assessors don’t know what they are doing.
4-   An NDIS client who is deaf wanted hearing aids. He was advised that he did not meet the criteria. He is too exhausted and demoralised to fight anymore.
5-   A mother has a son in a wheelchair as a result of an accident. She has tried for 18 months to get a ramp built - without which her son is virtually housebound. The family took their case to R.I.A.C. which deals with disputes with the NDIA. Her son also has additional complex needs. The family ‘overspent$20,000 for what she considers essential supports for her son. She took the invoices to the NDIA but they were all rejected. So the family is out of pocket for that amount. The service provider withdrew their services, and now their son has 2 or 3 falls each week. The mother is totally exhausted. 
6-   Another mother with 8 year old son with Down syndrome, stated NDIA is a basket case. The first NDIS plan was inadequate. For over a year, they attempted to have it modified. The family contacted the Ombudsman who later advised her they were unable to help. The NDIA wanted the boy’s school to pay for speech therapy. Her request for a review was denied. She later learned that the school was not responsible for speech therapy, but NDIA was.
7-   A mother with a 7 year old son had her NDIS Plan rejected 3 times. Her son has a very rare genetic disorder which has required reconstruction surgery and his hearing and vision is impaired. NDIA could not determine his case. He now has a Plan in the second year but NDIS has cut the funds by 50%. His mother has had to curb many services, including therapists.
8-    A blind adult had 7 NDIS reviews, but the agency does not understand her needs. She is taking her case to Administrative Appeals Tribunal. She is requiring assistance technology aids.
9-    A mental health nurse advised Bill Shorten that the NDIS does not work well in her field of expertise. Only 1 in 4 clients with schizophrenia even get a plan. She feels that NDIS is failing her clients. She is upset and frustrated with a system where she cannot help her clients get the support they need. Her clients are all on government benefits. Every 2 weeks she rings NDIA on behalf of a client, but nothing happens. She told Bill Shorten that the mental health system is completely broken. She believes her clients qualify under section 24 (a) (b) or (c) of the Act governing NDIS.
10- An Occupational Therapist Support Coordinator complained that she provides assessments to NDIA on behalf of clients, but they are rejected by non-medical staff with no knowledge or education of the issues.  In 3 years not one of her applications were approved. However the clients are not advised of this rejection in writing which makes it difficult to appeal. 
11- A man in a wheelchair spoke of applying for a new wheelchair plus a power pack. He got nowhere with NDIA. He had to pay $3,000 to refurbish his current wheelchair which is over 13 years old. NDIA was taking 6 months to get his consumables to him. He relies on the NDIA website to contact the service, but he said the website was often down. He is not able to make use of his funds and he cannot pay his service providers. 
12- A mother has a young adult son with cerebral palsy, and additional complex needs. At the NDIS Review he requested support requiring $30,000 but received much less. He desperately needed a new wheelchair, and has paid $4,000 on a deposit for one. 18 months later there has still been no money from NDIA. His mother is $15,000 out of pocket and her son has broken his leg three more times.  They believe that the NDIA team are not up to the job.
13- A complaint was made by a parent that there are inadequate regulations for Disability Service Providers, and many are ripping off clients. Gardeners and cleaning services are no good. Equipment for disability is overpriced - basically a racket. He has heard of 4 cases where carers are stealing money from client’s bank accounts and wants safeguards put in place.
14- Another complaint was made to Bill Shorten that companies employ people in order to receive the Government Employment Subsidies and then sack them when the subsidies finish. This is not uncommon, and also applies to many workplaces employing people from subsets other than those with disabilities. After 6 months or so, when the Government Subsidy expires, they find a reason to terminate their employment. The outcome can be devastating to the morale of a person with a disability who has done their very best, and through no fault of theirs, find that their employment has been terminated. How many businesses are milking the system in this way?  
15- A mother has an adult son in care with a massive brain injury. She is ageing and unable to take her son, who lives in residential care, to sporting and social events. Her husband is dead. She relies on her adult daughter to do this, and wants NDIS to pay travel and incidental expenses of daughter.

Bill Shorten finalised the session, thanking all who attended.
He advised that the Coalition Government had imposed staffing ceilings on the NDIS, and because of this, NDIS has had to use contractors. He believed that this was wrong. Bill also reported that there was a high staff turnover in the NDIS Agency.

He advised the families in the room that all allocated money not spent by NDIA should be segregated in separate accounts for future NDIS expenditure.

The ALP wants the NDIS to favour 3 year plans, rather than 1 year plans. He acknowledged that Mental Health is a very difficult call for NDIA.

He is very concerned that expert medical and health reports are being rejected by employees in the NDIA with no medical knowledge.

Following the meeting winding up, a number of attendees approached Bill with their concerns. They spoke of the lack of disability housing funding available, especially to ageing parents with adult children with disabilities. NDIS SDA housing criteria only applied to a very few clients and needed to be reviewed. Bill indicated he was aware of this problem.
-----------------------
Meanwhile for the NDIS providers ....



From The Australian on 31.8.19

"Former Labor leader Bill Shorten has likened the leadership of the National Disability Insurance Scheme to a “runaway train” after reports that providers are wasting funds on lavish dinners and five-star hotels. Former head of National Disability Services Chris Tanti said he was shocked at the spending extravagance. “I certainly was surprised at some of the hotels people would stay at and the restaurants that were attended ... the use of chauffeur-driven limousines was extraordinary by some,” the Daily  Telegraph reported Mr Tanti as saying on Saturday.


https://www.theaustralian.com.au/nation/politics/ndis-like-a-runaway-train-shorten/news-story/228eb63e44d2a6958c4ad42910dc8d02