THE Baillieu government is refusing to sign up to a federal target to halve homelessness by 2020, and is instead preparing its own multimillion-dollar strategy to cut the number of Victorians ''sleeping rough''.

With the latest census figures suggesting more than 20,500 people are at present homeless in Victoria, the government is preparing to overhaul the way agencies assisting the homeless are funded.

It is expected to allocate at least $34 million in next month's budget to an initiative focused on providing housing to young homeless people who are committed to finding a job.


Housing Minister Wendy Lovell said the government did not accept the Commonwealth's goal to halve homelessness by 2020, because it was an ''aspirational goal'' that would be too hard to measure given there is no nationally consistent and accepted definition of homelessness.

''We're committed to reducing homelessness, but I'm not about to set a target given the difficulty in counting people [who are homeless] and given the difficulty in actually measuring whether you've halved it or not,'' Ms Lovell said.



Her comments come as Prime Minister Julia Gillard's key adviser on homelessness warned that Victoria is at risk of falling behind other states unless it does more to address the number of people without a secure home.   :(

Brotherhood of St Laurence executive director Tony Nicholson, who chairs the Prime Minister's Council on Homelessness, said Victoria had ''led the nation'' in responding to homelessness for the past few decades, but was now at risk of falling behind other states such as South Australia and Western Australia. He said if Victoria wanted to reduce homelessness, the government's strategy should focus on providing more cheap housing and giving young people at risk of homelessness greater chances of getting jobs. But he said the government should also sign on to the national goals, because ''as with any endeavour, unless you set a target and measure progress, things don't happen''.   ;)

Sacred Heart Mission chief executive Michael Perusco agreed. ''Having a target focuses everyone's efforts on meeting a common goal … so it would be disappointing if the government didn't sign up to it,'' he said. :(

The government can't say how soon its homeless strategy will be in place, but it is expected to overhaul the system so that funding is linked to performance.

At present, agencies tend to be funded on throughput rather than the quality of their service and the outcomes they achieve to ensure the cycle of homelessness doesn't continue. Hanover chief executive Tony Keenan said it was important this changed because ''at the moment, the system is designed to reward failure''.   :(

Ms Lovell said the government would look at ''outcomes based'' arrangements for homeless services. The $42 million Labor previously committed as part of its homeless strategy last year would be retained, she said, and a further $34 million is likely to be allocated as part of the May 3 budget for three 40-bed centres that tie accommodation for young homeless with a mutual contract to get a job.

Good call.....each state should be responsible for their own housing programs.

The federal govt. never meet their target so they make the states fudge the figures so that it looks better than it is.

It will get worse, the government have lost all control and the opposition would/will be worse.

Buy a top of the range tent and see if they'll throw in an ensuite at a 50% discount.

Quote: - ""It is expected to allocate at least $34 million in next month's budget to an initiative focused on providing housing to young homeless people who are committed to finding a job.""


Their age, and whether they are 'committed' to finding a job
is irrelevant.

Efforts should be made to assist ALL homeless.

NO exceptions. And NO excuses.

Kat wrote on Apr 24^th, 2011 at 11:09am:

Quote: - ""It is expected to allocate at least $34 million in next month's budget to an initiative focused on providing housing to young homeless people who are committed to finding a job."" Their age, and whether they are 'committed' to finding a job is irrelevant. Efforts should be made to assist ALL homeless. NO exceptions. And NO excuses.

 

Many of the homeless have mental health problems, they go hand in hand. Quite often unemployment led to homelessness which led to mental health problems.

There was a point somewhere along the line when they had a job and a home.

There was usually a point somewhere along the line where they became homeless.

It is pretty easy to fix the problem, but not for the government, they are far too incompetent, and it's tomorrows problem.....let the next lot worry about it   >:(

when Villawood detention centre is rebuilt the fences could be taken down and homeless housed there....and all the illegals then transported by cattle truck and dumped in the simpson desert

billy the fish id are you channelling adolph?

or comming up with this elitism all your lone self..are you a jesuit?

or a member of the brotherhood of the snake?

namaste

Ex Dame Pansi wrote on Apr 24^th, 2011 at 10:15am:

Good call.....each state should be responsible for their own housing programs. The federal govt. never meet their target so they make the states fudge the figures so that it looks better than it is. It will get worse, the government have lost all control and the opposition would/will be worse. Buy a top of the range tent and see if they'll throw in an ensuite at a 50% discount.

why are you convinced the opposition would be worse.... NO ONE could be worse than this lot at anything... Mr Bean could do a better job lets face it!

cods wrote on Apr 24^th, 2011 at 5:29pm:

Ex Dame Pansi wrote on Apr 24th, 2011 at 10:15am: Good call.....each state should be responsible for their own housing programs. The federal govt. never meet their target so they make the states fudge the figures so that it looks better than it is. It will get worse, the government have lost all control and the opposition would/will be worse. Buy a top of the range tent and see if they'll throw in an ensuite at a 50% discount. why are you convinced the opposition would be worse.... NO ONE could be worse than this lot at anything... Mr Bean could do a better job lets face it!

We had a significant homeless problem for the eleven years that the libs were in power, they did nothing then so I wouldn't expect them to jump over hoops to fix the problem if they returned to power. They are as bad as each other, they care only about sucking the people in until the next election, governments are not concerned with long term policies, it gets them nowhere as you can see with the NBN, short term fixes are much more popular.

Besides both the libs and labs are right wing so it would be a conflict of their own interests to provide massive affordable accommodation since they are in bed with the real estate moguls.

It's a state issue... let the states deal with it.

stop or reduce foreighn aid to indonesia and india and spend it on housing these people...or ask clive palmer for financial  help to do so as i am sure he will oblige with the surplus he has acumulated by avoiding mining tax

It seems like there are a few different ways to tackle the problem of homelessness. I can't see that dumping the problem onto the states would be of any benefit. The individual states and territories are just as incompetent as the federal government. That would just be a different government to blame for the homelessness.

No, Clive Palmer or any other of the mining magnates are not about to part with their hard earned cash  ::) they're too busy buying failed football clubs for purposes of prestige  8-)

The homeless are going to have to wait until after the great depression when the country will put all efforts into rebuilding and restructuring new schools, hospitals and housing, roads etc........a big new Australia just like after the war, then leave it to crumble again like last time lol

I like how they use the number of homeless people as a measure of the housing shortage. As if any of these homeless people would be able to afford to buy a house any way :(

There is a hell of a lot of vacant public housing just sitting around doing nothing. Why ?? Is this part of the scam. Boost the homeless and you automatically boost the housing shortage statistics and hence keep the housing bubble inflated by repeating the same lie ;)

housing being the most expensive in the world in Australia now- its  only affordable to people with incomes  of $150.000 p.a.and above

They will do about as much to help the homeless
as they do for the jobless.

Nothing.

Maybe start penalising and punishing them for
BEING homeless, that seems to be their style.

Kat wrote on Apr 25^th, 2011 at 5:57pm:

They will do about as much to help the homeless as they do for the jobless. Nothing. Maybe start penalising and punishing them for BEING homeless, that seems to be their style.

If they're on benefits they'll halve it because they don't pay for accommodation, so they don't need as much lol

Sir lastnail wrote on Apr 25^th, 2011 at 12:20pm:

I like how they use the number of homeless people as a measure of the housing shortage. As if any of these homeless people would be able to afford to buy a house any way :( There is a hell of a lot of vacant public housing just sitting around doing nothing. Why ?? Is this part of the scam. Boost the homeless and you automatically boost the housing shortage statistics and hence keep the housing bubble inflated by repeating the same lie ;)

Fair post.

hello - new to the Forum -

Homelessness  -  a true confession??  been one of my two greatest fears since around the age of forty.
Its been a possibility, - and I live where I do now by 'as much arse as class.'  No -- I resile - I worked hard and was Lucky!!.   My first true home.
And things 'change'.

So - what am I saying?  I agree with Katanyavich.  All homeless should be helped !!,  be they willing -  irrespective of age - mental health - none of these things or their like - should mean a person is 'de-prioritised'! Yuk did I make that word up??

As to who is responsible - aren't we all?    So - thats the prob - what's the solution?  How can we solve it?        I'm starting from scratch.

 I do have some talent at problem solving, but I don't mean to sound like I know everything - what I'm going to say has probably been tried and ...that's way too much about me.!!!

---

there are practical acts that could be a start.  
This assumes a number of people with the same goal, covering a wide geographical area.

So the first thing  would be to bring together such a group - like on this Topic. In other words - organise.   I.T provides so many options.
If govt's, big or small,  are incompetent - due to their doctrine, time in Power, ineptitude, corruption, distance, ..whatever the excuse, people must always, and often do, take up the challenge.

Then:

1- Use all resources -  eg., personal, friends, acquaintances, relevant state and fed officers,  FOI,  State records, Titles,  info on boards, Twitter, facebook -wikileaks!  anything a group may access, -  to identify, in specific town/city areas, all available unused housing.
Be it public, private, unused, down for demo, for sale - all of it.

As someone pointed out earlier, there' s lots of it around, spread across many demarcation zones.

2- Approach as necessary those responsible for the empty dwellings, or potential dwellings, seeking approval for utilisation of the relevant buildings. And find out what may be needed to do so.

3- Speak to the homeless, talk about it with them !! Identify those interested in having a go, and where they would seek to be, and arrange it.

4- Involve the building Holders.  To assist in relocation and requirements. EG If the building needs work, or total make-over eg- Old Warehouses to Apartments. Old publicly owned structures convertible to provide homespace , etc.

5- DO IT!

---

I realise I am out of touch with now, in this context.  And I have - personally - so far, not had to deal with it.
Therefore --- This topic being available for comment is most welcome .

So - apologies in advance to any who think I may have been denigrating those already doing what they possibly can. --- All good things to them.

:-[

Ooh! Victoria is going to use part of their budget to build three x 40 bed centres. That ought to make a huge dent in their 20,000+ homeless.

d.

LifeMasque wrote on Apr 26^th, 2011 at 11:42am:

Ooh! Victoria is going to use part of their budget to build three x 40 bed centres. That ought to make a huge dent in their 20,000+ homeless. d.

'Detention' centres for the homeless, eh?

Who'd want the indignity of living in a (no doubt
tightly over-regulated) dormitory-style accommodation?

Not me. Sooner BE homeless.

AND make it conditional upon getting a (non-existent) job?

Why not just ship them off to work-camps, that
seems to be the prevailing attitude?

'Arbeit Macht Frei', eh?


EPIC FAIL.

AGAIN!!!!

Abbott's plan sparks welfare fears.   :(  
Kirsty Needham
August 18, 2010



WELFARE groups are concerned about Opposition Leader Tony Abbott's comments on restoring the Howard government's penalty regime for the unemployed.

Welfare Rights Centre director Maree O'Halloran said the former Coalition government's ''three-strikes policy'' had resulted in more than 3000 people being made homeless and 32,000 losing welfare payments for eight-week stretches in 2007.   >:(

In a plan to move ''from a welfare state to an opportunity society'', Mr Abbott said ''there should be consequences for non-performance''. ''Under the former government, consequences could be the suspension of benefits until compliance was resumed.''


He said he wasn't planning ''significant changes'' to the regime previously in place.

Ms O'Halloran said the Rudd government had revised the system last year to emphasise lesser, more immediate penalties for job seekers who failed to meet Centrelink rules, and complex case management. She said cutting off welfare for eight weeks ''has serious consequences''.   :(

A Coalition policy document says mutual obligation was the hallmark of Coalition government. Penalties for breaching mutual obligation requirements had fallen under Labor, from 32,000 in 2007 to 19,406 in 2008. Only half of the 13,779 penalties dealt out in the past 12 months have involved ''the most severe penalty of loss of benefits for eight weeks'', the document says.

Mr Abbott's announcement instead highlighted the ''carrots'' in the Coalition policy. Young job seekers who had been out of work for a year, then stayed in a job for two years, would be paid $6500 in bonuses. The Coalition will also match a government pledge to pay $6000 to welfare recipients who move to a regional area to take up a job, or $3000 if they move to a city.

''This is a policy of incentives,'' Mr Abbott said. ''We are essentially looking to reward job seekers who do the right thing.'' If a person left the job within six months of relocating, they would be blocked from welfare for six months under the Coalition policy.

Welfare groups labelled this ''extreme and excessive'', and said it might deter job seekers from taking a relocation offer.

Anglicare's Kasy Chambers said welfare election policies from Labor and the Coalition lacked compassion: ''What works for people in those situations is close engagement from services that respect them, not simply a whack with a stick or a couple of extra carrots.'   ;)    

Abbott's and Gillard's policies are equally repugnant
and equally contemptible.

And equally unacceptable to ANYONE with any compassion.

ACOSS and the Welfare Rights (What? They don't HAVE
any, do they?) Centre are NOT being listened-to at ALL, and
I feel that it's because they are nowhere NEAR militant and
vocal enough.

ACOSS puts out regular media-releases that, funnily
enough, DON'T get reported in the media. Read them
here, you probably won't see them anywhere else...

http://www.acoss.org.au/media/releases/

And when was the last time you saw a segment on
ACA/TT that DIDN'T simply run the unemployed down?

Why IS that, I wonder? <Sarcasm>