Victorian Homelessness Networks

Transcription

1 Victorian Homelessness Networks Submission in response to the Victorian Government s Pathways to a Fair and Sustainable Social Housing System Public Discussion Paper July

2 Introduction The Victorian Regional Homelessness Networks were established in They operate across Victoria in every Department of Human Services (DHS) region and are funded by Housing & Community Building to bring services together to share information, identify and find solutions to common needs and gaps in homelessness service provision. The Networks assist in establishing and maintaining close working relationships between Homelessness & Family Violence Services and the Department of Human Services in order to promote and support the best possible responses to homelessness within a regional context. Each network is made up of members from homelessness and family violence agencies funded through the Homelessness Assistance Support Program. The Networks have both grass roots and strategic goals. They fulfil a critical role in capturing and examining front-line homelessness service delivery issues through ongoing and regular consultation and communication with members. The Networks also assist to build service system capacity by identifying and developing potential solutions to address gaps and barriers. A key role for the Networks includes constructive, solution focused dialogue (in partnership with consumers and member agencies) with peak bodies and all levels of government on the issue of homelessness and its impacts in Victoria. The activities and directions of each Regional Homelessness Network is guided by a Steering Group made up of members from local homelessness and family violence funded services. Each Network has a Network Co-ordinator whose role is to manage and facilitate the Network s activities. Whilst there are some variations in terms of Network activities from region to region (as dictated by specific local needs and issues), the Networks fundamentally share a range of common goals and aims. Given this the Network Coordinators themselves have a unique role to play in building state-wide understandings; evidence bases and communicating the impacts of homelessness to both government and the wider community. As a group the Network Coordinators have a strong collaborative relationship which provides a robust vehicle for working together to find ways to improve and refine homelessness responses and assist in the development of a Homelessness Service System that is ultimately better able to address and resolve homelessness in Victoria. The Victorian Homelessness Networks welcome this opportunity to respond to the Victorian Government's discussion paper: "Pathways to a fair and sustainable social housing system." 2

3 We hope that the feedback presented in this joint submission will add to a constructive discussion and provide ideas and recommendations for the way forward for social housing in Victoria. In order to seek state-wide views and input into this submission we held regional consultation sessions in all regions. We also undertook a state-wide survey, which went out to all members of the regional homelessness networks. We received 278 survey responses in total. We welcome the Baillieu Government s commitment to addressing the housing needs of Victorians as demonstrated by the release of the Homelessness Action Plan (December 2011) and the Pathways to a Fair and Sustainable Social Housing System Discussion Paper (April 2012). We also welcome the Baillieu Government s commitment, in March 2012, to retaining the Victorian Charter of Human Rights and consider this decision an important demonstration of this Government s commitment to upholding and protecting the rights of Victorians. More broadly, the right to adequate housing and related rights are encompassed in the major International Human Rights treaties to which Australia is a signatory. The treaty states that signatories; Recognize the right of everyone to an adequate standard of living for himself and his family, including adequate food, clothing, and housing and to the continuous improvement of living conditions. In April 2005, the Victorian Housing Rights Tribunal met for two days to hear Victorian s stories about their housing and homelessness experiences. In the tribunal s report, Jelena Popovic, then the Deputy Chief Magistrate of Victoria, states; The testimonies we have heard highlight the alarming scale and magnitude to which all elements of people s rights to adequate housing are clearly being violated; and the urgent need for local, state and federal governments to cooperate and meet their obligations to address these violations. In 2006, Dr Miloon Kothari, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Adequate Housing, visited Australia. He found was what he described as a serious hidden crisis, stating; The Special Rapporteur was particularly troubled by the inadequate housing and living conditions he witnessed in some parts of the country, given that Australia is one of the wealthiest developed countries with a comparatively small population. He fails to understand why housing is not considered as a national priority. Whilst the waiting lists for public housing are up to ten years in some states, the authorities have not responded by increasing or 3

4 adequately maintaining the stock they possess. The response to high demands and the lack of public housing stock has been a constant tightening of the public housing eligibility process resulting in significant numbers of people unable to access public housing in a timely manner. When the Victorian Housing Rights Tribunal sat in 2005 the number of people on the Victorian Public Housing waiting list was 35,025. Seven years later, as of March 2012, it s at 37, 887. The static nature of the Public Housing waiting list strongly indicates that a new approach is urgently needed. The Victorian Homelessness Networks believe that careful and special consideration must be paid by the Victorian Government to ensuring that the rights of those who are at most risk, are most marginalized and have the least opportunities in our community are protected. We consider access to adequate housing a fundamental building block of a healthy and inclusive community and that the Government has a key role to play here. As the Victorian Housing Tribunal Report states; The other dimension of human rights highlighted by the testimonials was the notion of obligation most particularly government s obligation to protect, promote and fulfil the right to adequate housing. Under the international human rights framework, the obligation to protect and fulfil rights very clearly lies with government. We hope that the Victorian State Government will take this historic opportunity to make building a sustainable and healthy social housing sector a feature of its time as representatives of the Victorian people. 4

5 The Future of Social Housing in Victoria In terms of the future of social housing in Victoria there was a consistently held statewide view that a new approach from Government is urgently needed. This new approach needs to involve two key elements: An ongoing commitment from the State Government at both policy and practice levels to the provision of high quality, safe, affordable, social housing for all those who need it. A commitment to recurrent funding at adequate levels. Overall, sector staff view meeting the housing needs of the Victorian community as an objective that requires "a suite of responses" and that the provision of safe affordable social housing is both an essential element and critical for building safe, healthy communities. A commonly held sector view is that the current model of relying heavily on rent revenue needs urgent review, as clearly this model is neither working nor sustainable. The State-wide Sector Survey on the Pathways to a Fair and Equitable Social Housing System public consultation discussion paper asked the following questions: Q. Does the State Government have a role in the provision of public and social housing in Victoria? Overall 96.4% of those surveyed answered Yes to this question Q. Should the Victorian Government be responsible for managing a public and social housing portfolio? Overall 84.5% of those surveyed answered Yes to this question but added urgent improvements of the management of this critical community asset were required. Q. Currently public housing relies heavily on rent revenue to keep it financially viable. The recent Victorian Auditor General's Report states that this has resulted in a growing operating deficit. This means that operating costs currently exceed revenue by 42%. Do you think that the Government should commit to a recurrent operating subsidy for public housing? Overall 95.5% of respondents answered Yes to this question. 5

6 The Housing Affordability Crisis It has been clear for many years that there is a housing affordability crisis in Australia. According to Australians for Affordable Housing there are an estimated 510,000 households in the private rental market experiencing housing stress - i.e. paying more than 30% of their household income solely on housing costs. In July 2012, the COAG Reform Council released its third annual report on the nation's performance against COAG's 2009 National Affordable Housing Agreement (NAHA). The report's conclusions make disappointing reading, indicating that rental affordability worsened between 2007 and 2010 with more than 40% of low income households in "housing stress." The report also suggested that the gap between housing supply and demand has more than doubled to nearly 187,000 since Note: The National Housing Supply Council currently estimate the housing gap to be 228,000. A particularly concerning finding of the COAG Report is the difficulty the Council had in reporting on the actual progress and outcomes of the relevant partnerships between State and Commonwealth governments, noting: "Council cannot link the activity reported to the outcomes and objectives in the National Agreement. Reports on national partnerships generally provide information on activity without evidence of the effect the activity has on outcomes. We cannot clearly mark progress against or analyse them comparatively" Essentially this means that it s difficult to work out who is doing what, where and how this impacts on housing affordability or meets the targets that State and Federal Governments have agreed to. We will make recommendations later in this submission on how the NAHA could be reviewed and refocussed. Measuring Housing Affordability Recent research by AHURI suggests another way to measure housing affordability is the Residual Income Method, which calculates how much income is left over to cover housing costs after other household expenditures have been taken into account. If there is insufficient residual income left for housing costs, then a household is considered to have an affordability problem. This method differs from the 30% income ratio method, because it takes into account information about taxation and household expenditures. 6

7 The Residual Income Method suggests that affordability or "housing stress" may in fact be affecting a greater number of people than is calculated using the 30% of income method, with low income families in private rental at specific risk. One of the most disturbing findings of this research has been that applying the residual income method to public housing tenants shows that 65% of public housing tenants are also experiencing housing affordability problems despite the fact that they are paying rent at a generally perceived "affordable level" i.e. 25% of their income. In addition to this the AHURI findings also suggest that Centrelink income and support benefits - which according to the Government's Discussion Paper, 86% of Victorian public housing tenants are reliant on as their sole source of income, are in fact too low for them to afford private rental housing. Even for those who can afford to compete for housing in the private rental market the reality is that affordability and availability are significant problems. The National Housing Supply Council estimates that there is currently a shortage of approximately 493,000 private rental properties that are affordable and available to low income households. Homelessness The shortage of affordable private rental housing means that low income households unable to compete or afford to maintain housing in the private market are at great risk of experiencing housing stress, housing breakdown and ultimately homelessness as Specialist Homelessness Services data demonstrates. In April 2012 the Australian Institute of Health & Wellbeing (AIHW) released the first report on the new Specialist Homelessness Services Collection (SHSC). From July - September 2011, 91,627 people accessed support through the Homelessness Service System nationally, including 26,132 people in Victoria - 29% of the national figure. In July 2012, AIHW released its second SHSC report for the period of October to December Nationally, 98,742 people accessed the support of the Homelessness Service System with Victoria recording 33,701 clients - 34% of the national figure. It s important to note that AIHW consider these figures an "under-estimate" of the real number of people who were seeking support in these periods as not all Homelessness Services had started using the new data collection system. These underestimates will be adjusted later when AIHW release its annual data reports. For a large percentage of those seeking assistance, the SHSC reports indicate that financial difficulties and housing affordability were cited as key presenting issues or 7

8 drivers of their housing crisis. It must also be noted that Family Violence was the main reason cited for a large percentage of women and children when seeking support from the Homelessness Service System. For some of these households, access to social housing represents their only realistic & sustainable long term housing option but given the shortage of social housing (as evidenced by the lengthy waiting lists) their chances of being able to achieve this are increasingly slim. Homelessness is complex and needs multifaceted responses. There is no magic bullet. We need the suite of support, case management responses and demand management systems (i.e. the Opening Doors Framework) that we have developed and refined over the years. No single program or model holds all the answers and we should be wary of onemodel fits all approach. The diversity of the Victorian Homelessness Service System is in fact one of its key strengths, contributing like jigsaw pieces to a community of services that together make up the whole picture. We acknowledge that social housing cannot be the panacea for all housing needs. Therefore we strongly recommend that the Government continue to fund and expand the many successful Specialist Homelessness Case Management Services; Family Violence support programs and initiatives; Private Rental Brokerage Programs (including the Accommodation Options for Families Program) that resolve homelessness every day in Victoria, often diverting individuals and families away from the necessity of entering into social housing in the first place. Sector Responses on the future of social housing Overall, there is a widespread sector view that access to adequate housing is a human right. In addition, there is a widespread sector view that whilst there are clear humanitarian drivers for Government in the social housing space it also makes sense economically to work towards building a State that provides a place to call home for all its citizens, from which they can participate in education, employment opportunities and the other benefits of civic life that adequately housed Victorians may take for granted. Respondents expressed a number of views: Victoria s Housing Act (1983) states that every person in Victoria should have access to adequate and appropriate housing at a price within his or her means. What needs to be clearly understood by government is that the people, through the payment of taxes, own public services. The role of government is to administer what belongs to the people/citizens. Therefore it is clearly the role of government to ensure that there is an adequate supply of social housing. 8

9 Access to affordable and suitable housing is a basic human right and there should be a greater focus on it by government. Homelessness is just not acceptable in a country as wealthy as Australia. Many stated that the current economic model is: "Not viable given the marginalised nature of many of the tenants who are in the majority reliant on Centrelink payments for their sole income (86% of public housing tenants). Expecting rent revenue to cover operating costs just isn't realistic and ongoing recurrent investment is needed." Given the chronic under investment in maintaining current housing stock, the government needs to commit to a recurrent operating subsidy for a period of no less than 5 years to ensure there are funds to meet repairs and maintenance costs and to allow for some realignment to occur. This would alleviate uncertainty and allow for some genuine dialogue around a long term response to the operating deficit issue. Others pointed out the Commonwealth Rent Assistance (CRA) payments require urgent review as currently they are capped at the rate of inflation however given rents have risen faster than inflation this has reduced the value of this payment to low income renters over time. Currently 74% of rent assistance recipients receive the maximum rate. Many pointed out that the introduction of a Centrepay option for the repayment of debts would be of great benefit not only to tenants but to the OoH s bottom line. Many expressed the view that it is "clearly the role of Government to cover the difference between operating costs and rent revenue." Others stated that: As a taxpayer I would like to see my tax dollars directed towards more funding for social housing." Many stated that it is clear that the lack of a coherent strategic plan and the chronic under investment highlighted in the VAGO Report has led to the current crisis in the public housing system. A comprehensive review and fundamental changes to the way maintenance and asset management is conducted could save money into the future, especially in light of the release of the Victorian Auditor General s Office (VAGO) Report into Access to Public Housing released in March Others stated that: 9

10 "Housing should be seen in the same way as health or education services - essential community services. The real issue that needs to be addressed is the need to broaden the current focus away from heavily subsidising home ownership as the ultimate housing goal to looking at other ways to create and subsidise other affordable housing options such as a diverse and viable social housing sector. Home ownership is not a goal that everyone is able to achieve especially in the current climate of worsening affordability." The role of Government in Social Housing The importance of the Government's role in social housing is unquestionable. In October 2010 the Victorian Parliament's Family and Community Development Committee's Final Report - Inquiry into the Adequacy and Future Directions of Public Housing in Victoria was released. It included 81 recommendations. There were several key recommendations of the Inquiry that we would like to highlight in this submission as we consider them critical for a sustainable future for social housing in Victoria: 1. Develop a long-term targeted increase to the supply of Victorian social housing to achieve a progressive target of 5% of total housing stock by Note: the Victorian Homelessness Networks would like to see a further commitment to a 15% total housing stock target. 2. Amend the Planning and Environment Act 1987 to include as an objective a need to support the development and retention of affordable housing. 3. Increase the supply and distribution of new affordable housing, which may include private and social housing, by amending the Victorian Planning Provisions to allow for the use of "inclusionary zoning" 4. Advocate for Commonwealth funding of the difference between market rent and rebated rents on the basis that it is a community service obligation - to bring public housing in line with other corporatised government services that provide concessions to consumers, such as electricity and water supply. 5. Improve support for individuals and families on Early Housing Waiting lists - in particular educational and social support for children in these circumstances. Note: We consider that this recommendation relates directly to the issue of the chronic underfunding of the Homelessness Service System and needs to be addressed urgently. 6. Ongoing commitment to strategies for sustaining tenancies and continued funding for Neighbourhood Renewal programs. 10

11 Note: We consider recent cuts to the SHASP program are contrary to the Parliamentary Committee's recommendation and should be urgently reconsidered. The Government s role in improving Housing Outcomes in the Private Rental Sector We would also like to suggest that the Government considers making changes to regulatory frameworks and policy settings in order to introduce secure occupancy arrangements. Recent research by AHURI explores how different types of rental systems in Australia and overseas influence secure occupancy in private rental housing. The research notes; Historically, policy makers in Australia have prioritised home ownership as the main tenure to deliver secure occupancy, while the private rental sector has served as the tenure of transition. It was assumed that renters would quickly move into home ownership or, if not, would obtain these benefits from social housing. These assumptions have been undermined by two trends. First, housing affordability problems mean that households on low to moderate incomes find it difficult to purchase a home, and longer term renting is becoming more common. Second, the social housing sector has insufficient accommodation to house many of those on low incomes. Evidence from Victoria and NSW suggests that households who would normally move into social housing are experiencing exceptionally long waiting periods, with high risk tenants forced to live in marginal housing such as caravan parks and rooming houses. Others obtain private rental tenancies by committing to pay more than they can afford, with loss of tenancy occurring with a change in circumstances such as irregular income or loss of a job. AHURI notes that Australian renters experience very low levels of secure occupancy compared with those in other countries. Half of all Australian renters are on short term leases (six to twelve months) and 14% on a periodic tenancy (month to month). The research essentially suggests that Government has a key role in improving secure occupancy through changes to regulations, encouraging private investment tied to mandated specified outcomes and better targeting housing assistance to vulnerable households. 11

12 The role of local government in social housing In addition to exploring the role of the State Government in social housing, the Sector Survey asked the following question about the role of local government: Q. Is there a role for local government in the provision of social and public housing? Overall 76.2 % of respondents answered Yes to this question. There were various ideas such as: "There are existing examples of good practice with some local governments taking a pro-active role in the housing needs of their local communities - City of Port Phillip, City of Melbourne and the City of Whittlesea for example." "There could be a greater partnership approach between Community Housing Providers and Local Government specifically in regional and rural areas in terms of using local knowledge to plan for the community's housing needs." A greater role for local government could lead to a greater responsiveness to local housing needs, but local government will need support and guidance if their role is to be effectively expanded. All three levels of government have responsibilities for addressing the issue of housing unaffordability, especially for those locked out of the private rental market. Local governments definitely have a role in addressing affordability and accessibility in their areas. So much time, effort and expense has been put into regional housing studies but this information seems to be rarely acted upon. Why? There was also discussion about the role of local government in the regulation of Rooming Houses. We have seen a huge increase, specifically in metropolitan regions, of what are referred to as "rogue operators" who lease private rental properties, partition rooms, then operate them as Rooming Houses. Rarely do these rogue operators register their properties with local councils and there is a widespread sector view that the current regulatory frameworks are a toothless tiger that rogue operators consistently evade and disregard. New research into Rooming Houses by Professor Chris Chamberlain was released at the AHURI Research Conference in April The research states that there are approximately 1,400 Rooming Houses in Metropolitan Melbourne, many of which are unregistered and often an extremely substandard and risk laden form of accommodation. 12

13 There are three main findings in the research: The rooming house population in Melbourne increased from between 2,946 and 3,739 in 2006 to 12,568 in The population has become more diverse, with a range of disadvantaged people now in boarding houses. The national rooming house population is now estimated to be about 70,000. The Role of Community Housing The State-wide Sector Survey asked the following question: Q. Should Community Housing Providers take on a greater ownership or management role? Overall 80.8 % of respondents answered "Yes" and 19.7% answered "No" Of those who were supportive of CHPs taking on a greater role this was for the majority of respondents on the proviso that this was not at the expense of a limited role for Government and that Government would need to work closely with CHPs in a partnership arrangement to grow a sustainable and viable Community Housing sector. It was also a widely held view that CHPs would need to be much better resourced if their role was to be expanded. It was pointed out that in the UK, CHPs were provided with sizable grants and operating subsidies from the UK Government to upgrade and maintain stock that was transferred to them for management. This has not happened in Victoria placing CHPs in a very difficult financial position as some of the stock that has been transferred is in a dilapidated state and requires significant funds to bring it up to an acceptable standard. A number of people pointed out that Community Housing represents a relatively small percentage of social housing stock (only 17%) and that a greater role for CHPs would take years of careful planning as well as investment to ultimately result in more available stock options. Those supportive of a greater role for CHPs also stated that there needs to be a clear and consistent regulatory framework in place that would avoid a fragmented system from developing with organizations providing different services with different eligibilities & pathways to access. There was also a call for a planned approach to ensuring that Community Housing was available and responsive to local demand in regional and rural areas as well as 13

14 metro areas. It was also suggested that whilst there is often good reason for CHPs to specialize in certain types of housing or target groups that there also needed to be some kind of over-arching strategy in place to ensure that Community Housing was provided to all kinds of households and that supply was aligned to the diversity of need. Some were concerned that the current financial model the CHPs operate under makes it difficult for them to be able to offer housing to people on very low incomes such as people experiencing homelessness or those currently out of the workforce. Some Community Housing Providers set rents at the 30% of income level; this can mean people reliant on New Start payments can t afford it. Others pointed out that Community Housing should be viewed as a response to housing affordability rather than as a specific response to homelessness and that by accommodating those households struggling to compete in the private housing sector, CHPs reduce the overall demand on Homelessness Services. Many held the view that CHPs have a good track record and demonstrated expertise in effective tenancy management especially for tenants with complex needs. Others pointed out that the Office of Housing could improve some of its own tenancy management practices by examining and replicating the CHPs example in looking after both their tenant's well being and the maintenance of the properties they live in. Others suggested that if CHPs took on a greater management role that this should not necessarily include ownership of the properties. Others pointed out that the current financial model for CHPs is problematic and needs review. Some expressed the view that many CHPs have traditionally had a longstanding and successful role in providing housing to particular groups like singles but that a view to scale up their role would need careful planning and adequate resources. Cuts to the Social Housing Advocacy and Support Program (SHASP) We received a great deal of feedback about the importance of support in establishing and maintaining tenancies. The recent cuts to the Social Housing Advocacy and Support Program (SHASP) are an issue of great statewide concern both for the Homelessness Sector and our colleagues from mainstream and allied services. It would be difficult to list all the sector comments on the SHASP cuts so we have included several that reflect common and shared perspectives: "SHASP assists in maintaining tenancies. They are a vital part of the of the service system and 14

15 really should be expanded not reduced especially given the recent changes to the OoH application process which further targets complexity." "SHASP needs to be restored because of the great work it does in preventing homelessness and sustaining tenancies." "The cuts to SHASP are a short sighted measure which I am convinced will lead to an increase in overall costs for the OoH and the HSS as more people will be evicted and thus re enter an already over stretched homelessness service system as well as increasing the impost on VCAT, corrections, health and support services." Many stated that cuts to SHASP are; "contrary to the goal of creating a viable and sustainable social housing system." Many expressed the view that transitioning from homelessness, especially if the period of homelessness has been a lengthy one, to being housed can be an extremely difficult journey that presents a range of challenges to the individual. Geographically, the new property may take people away from places and people that they were familiar with, severing ties with support networks causing isolation and anxiety. It is the provision of respectful, sensitive & flexible support from programs like SHASP that s critical for "making a house into a home." There was significant concern that cuts to SHASP will add to "churn" in the public housing system - that inevitably there will be a rise in tenancy breakdowns and consequently a rise in homelessness. This not only has a detrimental impact on the individual or families concerned but will increase the pressure and demand on the Homelessness Service System which is already unable to meet the needs of all of those who seek its assistance due to chronic under resourcing and lack of exit points. Some survey respondents referenced the SHASP Evaluation Report that clearly makes the link between SHASP support and successful tenancies: The findings of this evaluation have served to confirm the findings of previous reports and reviews; meeting the housing needs of individuals eligible for public housing is about more than putting a roof over someone s head. Increasingly there are a range of other client issues that must be addressed. It is often these issues that both contribute to an individual s entry into the public housing system and undermine the success/sustainability of their tenancy. If these issues are not effectively addressed, then the effort expended to place an eligible individual into public housing can be quickly undone. For many, this will result in falling back into homelessness and perpetuation of the revolving door Many expressed confusion over the Government's message about creating a sustainable public housing system whilst simultaneously making significant cuts to SHASP given its unique role as a case management program which aims to help social housing tenants get back on their feet, establish successful tenancies and address barriers to housing stability. 15

16 The SHASP cuts and the Governments stated goal of linking tenants to support to improve their economic and social well being were seen by many respondents as contradictory and counter intuitive. In short "a mixed message." Many stated that SHASP has more than demonstrated its capacity to work effectively with tenants to get back on track with rental payments thus avoiding the considerable costs to Office of Housing of both lost rent revenue and often the additional extra costs of an eviction process. Given this, it was a commonly held sector view that an obvious consequence of the cuts to SHASP will be to place the public housing system in even more of a precarious financial position than it already is. Many stated that if one of the reasons that SHASP had been cut was that it relied on OoH rent revenues for funding then clearly the SHASP funding model needed to be reviewed and SHASP funded in a similar way to other housing and support programs. This is disgraceful. Shelter is a fundamental human right and the government is both committing an injustice and potentially exacerbating an already prevalent social problem by cutting off an important means of support to people in breaking the cycle of homelessness. This is a very short sighted move. Without support a number of high needs clients will be evicted and where will they go? To the under resourced Homelessness Services! It appears this government doesn t care what happens to people in need. Preventing evictions is a far better strategy than forcing people back into crisis. SHASP provides such a vital service to prevent homelessness. I dread the outcomes of these funding cuts. This will ultimately cost the government money as it will increase the number of vulnerable clients whose tenancy fails as a result of a lack of support. These cuts will put additional pressure on crisis accommodation and support services and will mean clients won t be able to break the homelessness cycle. The Victorian Homelessness Networks would also like to point out that the cuts to SHASP also contradict the Government's commitment not to make any cuts to frontline community welfare services. 16

17 Current Allocation Processes The Statewide Sector Survey asked the question: Q. Do you think the current allocation process for public and community housing is fair and equitable? Overall, 57.7 of respondents answered: "No" and 42.5% of respondents answered: "Yes" to this question. There was also a widespread view that: "There cannot truly be a fair and equitable allocation process until the percentage of social housing actually increases." A common theme in response to this question both through the survey and at the regional consultations was a query on the status of the Common Housing Register with many respondents stating that this piece of work was important and its absence added to a fragmented allocation process that led to inequity and unfairness. The OoH IT system and allocation practices and processes in general came in for some critique as a major barrier to efficient allocation. A very common response to this question was that; the consistent tightening of access and targeting of those with the most complex of needs has had a range of profound consequences that have contributed to the current crisis in the public housing system. In 1993 the Burdekin Report highlighted a serious deficiency in housing people at risk of becoming chronically homeless. The government s response was to segment the housing application process to prioritize those with higher support needs. Without the investment that ensures an adequate supply of public housing which matches demand, public housing has been unable to create communities that have a diverse social mix. Many stated that if there was more stock available there could be a more diverse group of tenants which would improve the "social mix" in public housing and potentially create a more consistent rent revenue base to draw from. There is a serious lack of housing for singles. The 5% of overall housing stock that constitutes social housing in Australia is seen by many as simply far too low in contrast to other developed countries like the Netherlands where 35% of total housing stock is social housing or the UK where it represents approximately 20% of the total stock. Note: The population of the Netherlands is 16 million, the UK population is approximately 62 17

18 million - the population of Australia is 22 million. Many noted that the very low percentage of social housing stock in Victoria of only 3% is a fundamental problem in itself. "Limited availability of stock makes fair and equitable allocation difficult and this has led to the current process of prioritizing by need. A more robust public housing sector would enable allocations to a broader range of tenants which would be desirable." Some suggested that the broad-bands need review and could be more flexible. Tenure Reviews The Statewide Sector Survey asked the following question: Q. Do you think tenure reviews should be introduced? This was a particularly complex discussion area both in the regional consultations and for survey respondents. Whilst there is an understanding that a finite resource needs careful management there was also a widespread uneasiness with introducing tenure reviews that could result in people becoming homeless or exiting public housing in an unplanned way. Many stated that this is a difficult question given we are being asked to respond to the "idea" of tenure reviews without having any access to further information about what exactly is in mind when this is suggested. As a result many staff stated that until they were able to examine some frameworks or suggested models that included details on criteria, processes, appeals, exemptions etc that they were not able to provide a considered answer. There was a significant amount of concern that policies of this kind could lead to "churn" in both the public housing system and the homelessness service system as well as perpetuating the financial problems of the Office of Housing by making tenants who had been successful in securing employment leave rather than exploring ways to build a more diverse population by readjusting rents or encouraging "rent to buy" schemes. There was basic agreement though that for many tenants, "transitioning" out of public housing, would require case management support to explore alternative options, "a sort of reverse SHASP program." There was a great deal of doubt that transitioning into private rental is a realistic option for many social housing tenants given the well documented failure of the private rental sector to offer housing that's affordable to low income households. A consistent sector view was that if this is a direction the government chooses to go 18

19 in then there is a strong preference to see tenancy reviews rather than tenure reviews. There was a consistently strong view expressed that making public housing "transitional" in nature is a direction that the Sector could not and would not support. There is a significant amount of concern that given the housing affordability crisis and lack of available and affordable private rental in Victoria that exiting people from public housing would lead to housing stress, housing breakdown and eventually homelessness. "Transition to where?" was a frequent response in both the regional consultations and in the Sector Survey. According to Australians for Affordable Housing: "In the last five years capital city rents have risen at twice the rate of inflation. Australia has a shortage of 493,000 rental properties that are affordable and available to people on a low income. Over 150,000 people in private rental are paying more that 50 per cent of their income on housing costs, even after receiving rent assistance." Many stated that given the majority of public housing tenants are older people, people with disabilities and single parents and with 86% of all tenants on Centrelink incomes that surely only a very small percentage of current tenants could possibly manage to "transition" anyway and that given this should the Government be placing so much focus on so few? Significant doubt was expressed that transitioning automatically means; "surviving or maintaining" private rental; stating that given the unpredictability of the employment market and the volatility of the housing market there was a risk that those who "transition out may find themselves needing to transition back in." Should the government decide to introduce tenure reviews we strongly recommend that this would need to begin with a period of consultation with public housing tenants, OoH staff, HSS staff, peaks and other stakeholders. Limited tenures There is no significant Sector support for this proposal. Recently AHURI undertook research on the impact of security of tenure on outcomes for public housing tenants - "How does security of tenure impact on public housing tenants? The report suggests that there are a number of key factors that are influenced and determined by security of tenure. These include: 1. Health & Well being 2. Family Stability & Education 19

20 3. Social Cohesion 4. Employment There was a consistent and strongly held sector view that introducing an element of insecurity in terms of tenure is not in the best interests of the social housing tenants or the broader community. Retaining the current rent model The Sector Survey asked the following question: Q. Do you think that the current rent model should be retained i.e. tenants currently contribute up to 25% of their income towards their rent? Overall 81.5% answered "Yes" to this question. The argument made in the Discussion paper that it is "unfair' that public housing tenants have not been subject to the steep rise in housing costs in recent years as private rental tenants was not an argument that anyone in the sector considered held any weight. We would like to highlight that as previously discussed using the Residual Income Method to assess a household s level of housing stress, recent AHURI research shows that 65% of public housing tenants are also experiencing housing affordability problems despite the fact that they are paying rent at a generally perceived "affordable level" i.e. 25% of their income. In addition to this the AHURI findings also suggest that Centrelink income and support benefits - which according to the Government's Discussion Paper, 86% of Victorian public housing tenants are reliant on as their sole source of income, are in fact too low for them to afford private rental housing. Social Housing & Stigma There was a common view that questions 7a & 7b on the Feedback Form were symptomatic of the ways in which social housing tenants are often stigmatized. Many stated that they found these questions both patronizing and judgmental. Given the findings of the March 2012 VAGO Report on Access to Public Housing, many sector staff suggested that rather than focus on tenant's behavior and obligations that the present Government may be better placed to examine its own role and obligations in addressing the failure of past governments to act as a "good landlord." Many pointed out that the VAGO report highlighted the incomprehensible absence 20

21 of strategic planning and abysmal record of under investment in managing and maintaining the public housing portfolio that underpins the current crisis: "DHS has not set overarching direction for public housing or taken a strategic comprehensive approach to managing this $17.8 billion dollar property portfolio. The public housing portfolio is now in a seriously deteriorating condition with the division estimating that 10,000 properties, 14 % of the total will reach obsolescence over the next four years (VAGO Report, March Access to Public Housing) These issues are not unique to Victoria. What is it that underpins this failure of successive governments to act and keep repeating the same mistakes? Some suggested that it is the stigmatization of social housing. We are unfortunately all too familiar with the countless and frequent depictions in the media of social housing as "dysfunctional ghettos" and public housing tenants are "ungrateful free loaders." There is a perception problem here that needs to be addressed as these views are not just inaccurate but destructive. Their perpetuation has led in no small part to the current crisis we are facing. Recently AHURI undertook some research on the stigmatization of social housing and its role as a policy blockage and a policy problem in its own right. The key points of the research are: 1. Stigmatization is a process by which individuals and groups are judged to have negative characteristics that transgress the social norms. Because of stigmatization, social housing is widely viewed as a drain on resources, rather than a worthwhile investment in assisting those who are less fortunate. 2. Social Theory is useful for understanding stigmatization as a process that is distinct from, but related to, the material circumstances of poverty and disadvantage. It shows that stigma is not a natural or inevitable outcome of disadvantage. Instead, stigmatization should be understood as a complex process shaped by powerful social groups, such as the media. 3. Negative depictions of social housing are over represented in the media; this results from commercial pressures for journalists to provide entertaining stories at the expense of positive, everyday living. 4. Stigmatization of social housing has negative impacts on well being outcomes for residents and on neighborhood amenity. It can also operate as a policy blockage, for example hindering efforts to improve the social mix. AHURI research suggests that housing policies in Australia are "largely underpinned by pathological and reconstitutive narratives, which attribute responsibility with residents and assumes the effectiveness of bureaucratic fixes. As disadvantage is 21

22 pathologised, social housing residents are perceived as inherently problematic and undeserving. Further, stigmatization may operate as a brake on policy interventions that aim to improve the living circumstances by reducing public support for investment in public housing" There was a consistent sector wide view that further investment in or an expansion of existing Community Development initiatives at public housing estates would be of great benefit to overall community life. Estate based Child Care Groups, Community Gardens, Youth Groups, Social Groups for older tenants, Cooking classes, IT classes and Health Time Days were amongst the examples given by sector staff as effective ways to improve and enhance community and social life. We recommend that the Baillieu Government consider the impacts of stigmatisation on social housing policy and steers a new course for a future that rejects the victim blaming approaches of the past. Ways to improve interaction between the social housing sector and other sectors Various views were expressed on this issue. Many pointed out that effective interaction requires resources. Coordination and collaborative interactions have improved significantly in the Homelessness Service System since the introduction of Local Area Service Networks (LASN). There is potential for LASNs to be resourced to focus on fostering closer working relationships and strategic partnerships with the public housing sector using the LASN as the vehicle and mechanism for this. LASNs are also perceived as the key vehicle to drive improvements in regional and local interactions with a broad range of other sectors as well as a place to begin exploring and embedding the principles and practices of One DHS & Services Connect. The Victorian Homelessness Networks and the Network Coordinators are also viewed as a critical resource and mechanism for capacity building and improving partnerships between sectors. The Network Coordinator's roles in this area are seen as highly valuable and important as evidenced by the various network s websites, extensive cross sectorial information distribution lists, practice forums, working groups and the various regional capacity building networks facilitated by the Coordinators. 22

23 Recommendations We would like to make the following recommendations: 1. That the Government set up a Statewide Housing Taskforce. a) That this taskforce be charged with assisting the Government to develop a long term strategic plan with clear objectives for reducing stigmatization, building, growing and managing a financially viable, high quality public & community housing sector that can keep up with current & future demand and is reflective of the diversity of the Victorian community's needs. b) That this taskforce undertakes a detailed and careful analysis of the future housing needs of Victoria so that we develop and maintain a housing system that can adequately respond to not only current needs but future needs. c) That this taskforce commits to developing a long term, comprehensive strategy for ending homelessness in Victoria. d) That this taskforce focus on strategies for improving housing affordability in the private sector. e) That this taskforce includes representation from the social housing and homelessness sectors, private sector, peak bodies, housing and homelessness academics, social housing tenants and consumers of the Homelessness Service System. 2. That the Government commit to funding an ongoing operating subsidy for the public housing system given the current economic model is unsustainable. Treasury & Finance should cover the gap between operating costs and rent revenue. 3. We support the Australians for Affordable Housing proposal that State and Federal Governments need to review, refocus and renegotiate the National Affordable Housing Agreement (NAHA) by: a) Establishing an Affordable Housing Growth Fund. The operating funding for running state housing systems should be split from the capital funding to grow the number of houses available. This will help make sure states are building enough housing for those who need it. b) Improving the transparency of government spending. It is unclear how states spend funding they receive under the National Affordable Housing Agreement. Clearer accountability on spending would make it easier to track which areas are improving and why. c) Indexing the agreement properly. The way funding under the National Affordable 23