One of the things the 2020 Summit is supposed to encourage is long term policy thinking. That’s something, arguably, that was consistently absent from John Howard’s style of governance - as demonstrated well by Nicholas Gruen in this essay. Note that I’m not arguing that right wing regimes per se lack the ability to plan ahead - Thatcher certainly had it, as mendacious as many of her measures were. But Howard and his government appeared to be a very particular style of political beast - electorally driven beyond belief. When we weren’t told that we were living in an earthly paradise, any problem that reared its head was instantly fixed - and ideally through a highly ideological announcement that would serve a double purpose as a “wedge”. Most of the time, the media moved on the next rabbit in the spotlight and the ensuing hat trick, and the issue went back underground. Consider - for instance - the Howard government’s response to homelessness. The only post-war government to lack a housing minister, the Coalition never did a thing, apart from occasional exhortations from Peter Costello about the virtues of voluntarism, until Mal Brough came along. Brough announced some sort of PPP for community housing, which, as far as I can tell, never got beyond the headline stage. He had bigger fish to fry.
It’s interesting, then, to consider the response of both the Rudd government and the media to the National Youth Commission’s homelessness report. The media have done a good job in highlighting homelessness among youth, particularly hidden homelessness (where people cycle from couches through emergency accommodation onto the streets and back again). But the policy debate still seems stuck at the magic wand stage. For instance, I thought Kerry O’Brien was hopeless when interviewing Tanya Plibersek the other night - the whole thrust of the questions appeared to be “why won’t this all be fixed yesterday?”… I don’t know if the Howard approach encouraged a certain statism as well as a tendency to frame everything in terms of politics, but I think that the authors of the report, David McKenzie and Major David Eldridge have a much more sensible view:
In the present Australian economic context, the acid test of success will not be how much money the Rudd government spends on youth homelessness during its first term, but whether the right policy settings have been put in place, and whether it demonstrates a strong commitment to progressively fund these strategies for the next five, ten or 20 years.
Cross-posted at PollieGraph.
Good point, Mark, re Kerry O’Brien the other night. It’s all very well getting stuck into Tanya Plibersek but the media NEVER asked the previous government about the issue at all. All they would say was “low interest rates make affordable housing” blah blah blah. Expecting a new government to fix the problem overnight is a tad unrealistic.
I’m hoping the Homelessness Green Paper the government has commissioned has a visionary approach though and looks at real structural change and gets the policy settings right. We need more than an incremental shift.
A bit off topic but it’s not quite fair to say that Howard had no long-term policies. We saw them developing in the 1980s and early 1990s, culminating in ‘Fightback’. Thing is, he’d implemented most of them by 2000 or at least believed he had: break the power of the unions, introduce GST, stamp out ‘political correctness’. After that he thought Australia was a pretty awesome place and his interest in clinging to power was to make sure nobody stuffed it up again.
Did you watch the documentray ‘The Oasis’ last night? Fantastic insight into the issue. There was apanel after which Tony Jones hosted. Jones was fairly hopeless. He kept wanting puintive solutions, such as why don’t we control welfare payments so they don’t get spent on drugs? Eldridge was great. Because, he said, people wil just turn to theft to grt the cash. He pointed out that they knew what programs worked to fix youth homelessness. There are pilot programs that work. They just need be rolled out. I thought Plibersek was good and thoughtful about the issue. Hopefully, it stays high on the radar.
Yeah, I saw the documentary, which was quite moving. I didn’t stick around for the chat afterwards, but I’m inclined to think that about a dozen more of ‘Oasis’ around the metropolitan area, with staff of that caliber, would make a huge difference in Sydney. It would mean that those kids could be given the support they need more consistently, and somewhere to stay, rather than being turned away because of lack of beds or funds or whatever.
At the other end, early intervention and support programs could be coordinated through existing services, like child-care centres etc. Many of those kids had situations where they were in conflict with, or abused by, their mother’s partners. It struck me that if women were given more support to get out of abusive situations, it would help a lot of kids who are going to end up on the streets in the future.
Plibersek was very good. I hadn’t seen much of her previously, and was quite impressed. She seemed to actually care about the issue in and of itself, not just as flavour of the month.
Yes what was Tony Jones on about last night? He was an embarrassing oaf. He seems to think the NT intervention is his own personal triumph and should be extended to all social ills in all communities. The panel members were great. I thought Plibersek showed amazing restraint under the circumstances.
Jones was indeed an oaf.Sometimes the guy is a misguided fool. And pretty bloody rude as well. Lets hope the right wing in the ABC doesn’t start pushing for punitive and ineffective intervention with the homeless. When is Rudd going to get round to clearing out the Howard clones at the ABC?
I dont think Tony Jones was committed to punitive solutions, he was just trying to set up Tanya Plibersek about interventions into Aboriginal communities and trying to get her to say she had different solutions for Aboriginal communities than for non-Aboriginal youth in crisis. Jones had a clever idea but he didn’t deliver it very well. Plibersek gave a good and correct response regarding Cape York but Jones’ point was still very relevant to the new government’s present approach to protecting young people in the N.T.
As for the movie…
It was a fascinating movie but I think it was more about the particular youth service than it was about homelessness. The young people were defined by their relationship with the service which seems to exist more for the personal/spiritual edification of the christians than in dealing with issues of homelessness.
Obviously the workers involved have acted with great integrity doing what they can in a desperate situation, but the Salvation Army mode of frontline outreach does not address issues of appropriate accomodation, appropriate detox and rehab programs, appropriate mental health, appropriate home support structures, etc. The discussion at the end focused on the need for an individual young person to make a decision to change as the only solution, a position I totally agree with. But given the limited options available, especially culturally alienating options such as conservative christion or government programs, it is easy to see why a person would not choose to seriously engage with these modes of service delivery and accomodation, or at least not until it was an option of last resort.
Also, from a Queensland perspective, detox and rehab programs are designed almost exclusively for alcohol and heroin addiction. If the problem is speed, ice, paint or petrol then the person must have these addictions dealt with before they can access mainstream services. There are a very few tokenistc spaces available in some youth program that deal with paint and petrol but the general situation is that drug programs lack the resources or trainig to deal with the other drug situations. If a young person’s drug problem is not alcohol or heroin there is often no available choice to get help to quit their habit.
The choice to go clean needs to be a bit easier to make, in terms of more available services as well as non-institutional modes where “clients” are in control of their lives rather than abandoning their own will and handing themselves over to state or church programs as hopeless victims.
But as one of the young people who managed to get his life together said in the forum, he couldn’t have done it - been able to access appropriate support and health services - unless he had a secure home base to survive in.
Hostel and emergency accomodation, such as the Oasis program, may well provide a bed to rest in between daily crisis but it is not a secure home base from which to realistically access health and support services. Residential rehab programs similarly provide rest between crisis but when the person successfully completes their program, what lifestyle do they step into? Hostels and crisis accomodation modes? or secure, appropriate, private and comfortable home environments.
And finally, all the crises that the poor old Salvo’s had to deal with on a daily basis are also being faced by families and private homes all over the place. Many young people on the streets have friends and family who they visit and get support from. These non institutional support structures have to deal with the drugs and violence too, and make the hard decisions about when to call the police, and get abused for their help and everything portrayed in the Oasis documentary. Often they are homeless because the family or friends have had to make the hard decision to kick someone out just as the Oasis hostel did. Like the stressed out Salvos, the families and friends also struggle to assist people to get their own accomodation.
These family and community processes need support too, ways of making them stronger and being able to provide and/or access more options rather than just handing their loved ones over to institutional modes.
“It was a fascinating movie but I think it was more about the particular youth service than it was about homelessness. The young people were defined by their relationship with the service which seems to exist more for the personal/spiritual edification of the christians than in dealing with issues of homelessness.”
I didn’t get that out of the doco at all. Obviously all the Salvos could do is lmimited. But I didn’t see any sign of it being for the Salvos edification.
But, you’re right, of course. Homeless youth need much more support and it’s often their family and friends who bear the brunt of their problems.
I diden’t think the Oasis project was that religious-bsed. So far as I could work out attendance at the Salvo chapel was not comnpulsory, and nor did the minister, his wife, or the Salvo helper appear to foist Xanity onto the clients. I was very impressed by this lack of prosletysing. Its not something that always happens with the Salvos.
And I utterly agree these type of programmes have to be much more than just institution-based.
I wasn’t talking about proslytising, I also noticed a lack of this in the movie. I think the Salvos in general are pretty good as far as that goes.
For me, it is a question of super heroes with personal callings struggling with the too hard basket, as Oasis is, while the rest of society is relieved that at least someone is doing something. These great and holy individuals bash their heads against a brick wall day after day because there are not enough real support structures. The ambulance drivers provide band aids daily with ever increasing demand for their services. Only the faithful can sustain such emotional drain.
Mainly as the Howard legacy, today most frontline services are run by religious charities. State counselling and referral services routinely direct people to charities including centrelink refferals for material assistance, because those with a religious motivation and charity economy are the only existing services. Much government funding is also directed to these charities as many social services have been outsourced.
The religious charity exists primarily to facilitate the relationship between the christian and their god. The Salvos say you find Jesus in the contemporary poor, as they provide the homeless youth with a meal and a bed they are providing hospitality to their lord Jesus Christ just as the bible says.
Deep down, I reckon the spiritual agenda of the staff dominates the needs and perspective of people on the street in such things as program design and mode of management.
The injecting community have shown the way in effective community education, outreach and frontline referral to health and support services, a model of peer management and new service development based on the real needs, perspectives and capacities of the target communities rather than burnt out or super-faithful welfare workers (especially in uniform) trying to engage with street people from the moral values and life experience of someone very different.
don’t get me wrong, the Oasis people have obviously broken through the cultural barriers and had real heart connected relationships with people. The trouble is the program of action only creates hope in the personal relationships and generosity and personal limits of the worker, sustained by their faith.
Government youth workers are the same. The stress of administering a dysfunctional and under resourced program leads to two kind of staff, those who want to get out a.s.a.p. and those with some personal motivation to persist and do the best that can be done given the lack of capacity.
The Salvos said (in the forum) the solution was to give more money to the Salvos to be able to do more of the same sort of thing. I hope cooperative housing, peer education, many more specialised health services, education and work programs etc. are seriously considered by governments and charities alike. Howard’s legacy of leaving crisis to the Salvos and St. Vinnies has entrenched some very bad institutional habits that require victims to make sense of their own existance. Social agencies as well as the poor, disadvantaged and remote Aboriginal communities need to transcend welfare and victim consciousness.
I know there are many Salvos looking for different ways to serve the poor and the Oasis doco showed such things as work, health and permanent accomodation assistance. These should be central to any serious program, not experimental apendages to a standard outreach/drop-in, crisis accomodation and referral (to inadequate services) mode - state or religious.
I don’t see why secular non government organisations could not also fill the same role. I suspect that often it ends up being religious organisations because they are able to naturally provide the organisational infrastructure for volunteers and have a tradition over many years of doing so.
Is it really punitive to redirect a portion of welfare payments to rent to guarantee that it is always paid? Sure, they might end up stealing to fund addictions, but at least they will have somewhere to stay. Depending on how its done, and in practice I think its harder to control, I think a similar argument can be made for food too.
Perhaps some places where its guaranteed that people will be supplied with cooked meals in exchange for being supplied with less welfare in cash - for those who have previously demonstrated that they are unable to manage the money they are given.
“Is it really punitive to redirect a portion of welfare payments to rent to guarantee that it is always paid?” I thought Tanya Plibersek had quite a good answer to that - namely, there are lots of alcohol & drug abusers out there who are on high incomes. Should we be quarantining their income as well?
I liked the voluntary money management system operating at Oasis: they would cash cheques if the kids accepted help managing the money, otherwise they had to go elsewhere to get money.
Well if they are unable to pay their rent, or afford food for themselves or children then I think there is a good argument for quarantining any government supplied money. Even for those on low incomes with addiction problems I wouldn’t advocate quarantining unless they were unable to meet basic needs such as rent and food.
Decisions about quarantining income from private institutions is really a matter for them rather than the government. If the person’s addiction is at the point where they can’t afford food or housing then its almost certainly affecting their work performance. And at that point its likely they are going to do a whole lot more than just quarantine their employees income.
Including a lot of pollies over the years.
I can’t see how it encourages responsibility (and surely that’s the aim, not just punishment?) to “quarantine” people’s money. To make sure landlords get their due. How often has anyone on this thread who’s been a renter and occasionally been short of a quid not paid the rent exactly on time? Even forgetting all the drunk drivers in the Porsches. Who don’t have to worry about housing and food. Small change for them.
What’s wrong with teaching people how to manage money and letting them do it? Will the taxpayer drop dead of a collective heart attack if it doesn’t quite get done down to the nth cent and dollar every time?
Again, how many people on average incomes leave bills unpaid, etc, til it’s convenient?
Ever heard of 60 day terms in business transactions?
John Tracey,
Howard’s solution to the welfare sertvices in fact has virtually taken us back to the 1840s - yes, the 1840s, when provision of welfare to the poor and disadvantaged was solely the responsibility of church groups. Its as if the lessons learned in the 1890s and Great Depression have been almost entirely forgotten, and the will of the people expressed in the 1944 referendum that the Federal Government take resaponsibility for social welfare entirely ignored. Perhaps one of the most chilling moments of the 2007 election campaign for me was Howard’s promise in his policy speech to turn his attention to welfare reform - what he actually intended to do was dismantle the welfare system that has served the poor and disadvantaged so well since the end of WW2. Nor has the Opposition disowned this policy position.
On drug users and alcxoholics not buying sufficient food with their welfare payments - its a symptom of addiction that one spends less on food and more on the drug of choice. To introduce punitive welfare measures is a bit like persecuting some-one because they’re ill.And addiction CANNOT be cured unless the addict really wants to be cured.
I think thats exactly what should be done for the people who need it. The problem is not that the landlords won’t get their money as they often have insurance that covers non payment of rent anyway or factored into the rent that everyone pays. Its that these people end up getting evicted and then are homeless. Its about protecting people who have demonstrated that they need help.
You could even have a system where over time the amount quarantined is reduced so people do gradually learn to budget again. But at least in the meantime they can have somewhere stable to live and food to eat.
I’ll add that I only think this is really important where children are involved as their welfare is dependent on their parents making reasonable decisions.
This isn’t about people who occasionally leave bills unpaid (though increasingly this results in fines anyway), its about those who are so late in paying rent they end up homeless or mismanage their finances so badly they are unable to afford basic food items. Its paternalistic to quarantine, but its not punishment, and there a lots of examples in our society of paternalistic behaviour by the government to protect people from themselves and others.
Well credit cards are really the analogy to this for the general consumer. Its easy to get 40-50 days of interest free credit if you use them properly.
My point, writing as someone who works providing services, is that teh big business often leave bills unpaid after 60 days are up *and those terms suck anyway* purely to maximise their own cashflow. Which isn’t so flash for those of us who’d like our invoices paid so we can pay our own bills. I don’t necessarily disagree with all you write, but there seems to be this unexamined assumption out there that every responsible (for which read middle class) person and corporate entity in society manages money according to certain principles - which are more often than not rarely observed in practice.
But we want to make them obligatory for people who’ve already been dudded by society.
I’ve got an unpaid phone bill sitting on my desk right now. I’m leaving it there til I get some cashflow. Telstra will fine me 5 bucks. I could care less.
It’s a lot more complex than it seems for a lot of folks.
And there also appears to be an assumption that people could afford food after paying rent. In many of the circumstances we’re talking about, that’s an unsafe assumption.
A lot of people on minimum wage with kids might be able to afford to pay the rent (just) and still not be able to feed, clothe, etc, the whole family adequately. If they end up homeless, is it because they haven’t been able to “manage their money” or because we live in a society that rewards people according to principles of gross inequality? Meanwhile rents are set by the market. And the price of food, transport, etc, is skyrocketing.
Btw, try getting the freakin Commonwealth government to pay its bills on time if you’ve provided contractual services to it.
Right, they do it because they can and can get away without it with few consequences.
Oh I don’t disagree with you there. I think the government needs to reinvest in public housing again for example as well as encourage those who don’t need to be in public housing to leave to free up space for those who do. I don’t deny there are those out there who simply can’t afford both housing and food. But there people out there who could manage it if it wasn’t for addiction, or simply lack of knowledge about budgetting or self discipline. The government can help those people.
Which is the same reason that many businesses also are slow to pay. Its easier/cheaper not to. $5 for many is just annoying. Cutting the phone line off is another matter
I’d just like to add my 2 cents. Personally I hate the fact the Howard government threw so much money at these organisations (Christian). Really it was all for one true purpose and that was to convert people to the religion he follows. They make an absolute killing. Give more money to the Salvos? You’re kidding, a multi-billion dollar organisation with assets too numerous to count. This is the same mob that got exposed for cooking their books to receive millions in extra funding they were not entitled to through their Employment Plus arm thanks to Howard’s Job Network system. Pay a visit to one of the Salvo’s Employment Plus centres and see how they actually treat the poor and unemployed. You’d find more caring, heart and concern at a Young Libs meeting.
We’ve also just recently heard about the Mercy Ministries mob too. A nasty organisation that performs exorcisms on young women and forces them to sign over their Centrelink payments for having the audacity to have an eating disorder, drug addiction etc. The organisation is propped up by Gloria Jeans Coffee and Hillsong Church. How these ‘helpers’ are not in jail I have no idea.
What all of these religious organisations specialise in is keeping you on their books. If you’ve been in their system at all they keep trying to sign you up for their programmes/people etc. before your expiry date finishes regardless of whether you need it or not. It’s all about the ridiculous amount of continual funding they get from the government. In terms of the employment programmes they also hope you don’t know they get allocated an extra few thousand dollars (on top of the tens of thousands they get for ‘finding’ you a job or a place in a course) to spend specifically on you the unemployed person to help you find employment; new work clothes, boots, bus tickets, petrol tickets etc. 9 times out of 10 they pocket all this money without offering to spend a cent on you unless YOU bring it up with them. Still only then do you receive a small fraction of what is meant to be spent on you. It’s all a massive rort and these ‘charitable’ organisations have John Winston to thank for it. Ain’t no business like religion.
Chris Hedges is an author who has just written a new book called “American Fascists: The Christian Right and the War on America”. While I haven’t read it yet it supposedly does contain a bit about how entrenched this rorting is in the US system and which Howard clearly modelled the current set up on.
One point i havent seen raised here is how to deal with those who are homeless by choice. As alien as that may seem to many, a life of utter freedom from responsability IS actually attractive to many on the street.
Their logic and reasons for this may seem weird to us but may make perfect sense to them.
What if they dont want to abide by the restrictions placed on them by an aid agency to learn to budget/clean up/get a haircut and get a real job? They are pretty well set for at least 1 meal a day in all capital cities (soup kitchens etc.), and some shelter is available if they lay off substance abuse for the duration of their stay.
I havent brought this up as a shot at anyone advocating positive mesures to provide assisstance to the homeless or distressed, but more as an open question as to what people think should be done with this paticular group?
In a country where an individual cant be forced to conform, are this group always to be with us?
Mole, my experience from 30 years working in and around homelessness is that very few people are homeless by choice. There’s lots of people who are beaten by the system and resigned to their lot, granted. But I’ve met very few who choose to live rough.
The vast majority of the homeless or those at risk of homelessness are terrified by the prospect, and I think that came through in the Oasis story. There’s alot of bravado amongst homeless young people, granted. But it’s a rare person who doesn’t want to belong.
The evidence points towards successful strategies in combating homelessness as being focused on 2 groups - those at risk and those who are long term homeless. Different strategies for both groups.
With young people, we have to fix our child protection systems, identify those young people involved in family based conflict and look at ways to keep those young people engaged in education and hopefully employment. That isn’t going to pick up all the mental illness and drug use, but it will go along way to mitigating the effects.
The young people we saw in the Oasis story had been let down by the system along time before they turned up at Oasis. In their case, they need a holistic approach that looks at all the issues in their lives and helps them sort through them to achieve their goals whether it is tackling their drug stuff, dealing with mental illness or dealing with their family. It’s no easy job.
I’m not in the front line anymore. It’s one of the hardest jobs to do and my admiration goes out to all those who are.
And for the record, the majority of homelessness service in this country (there’s about 1200) are mostly local community organisations not church based organisations. But you notice the Salvos et al because they fundraise and have a national profile.
Angharad said ” the majority of homelessness service in this country (there’s about 1200) are mostly local community organisations not church based organisations. But you notice the Salvos et al because they fundraise and have a national profile.”
A few responses.
1/The Salvos and St. Vinnies have a high profile not just because of fundraising and publicity. Anyone who has been homeless or in severe crisis will have contact with these organisations. Homelessness workers, counsellors etc. from a plethora of agencies including Centrelink will refer people to the Salvos and St. Vinnies. Most emergency accomodation is Salvos and St. Vinnies. Most financial or food assistance comes from church groups.
2/ Homeless people need homes, not housing workers. All 1200 homelessness agencies struggle (unsuccessfully) with severe shortages of emergency, short term and long term affordable housing. Many “community” housing projects are simply catchments for St.Vinnies and the Salvos because there is, generally speaking, nothing else.
3/ Many “community” agencies are administered by churches or their comittees have strong church representation. All housing/homelessness networks and coalitions are heavily represented by church agencies. Government policy, including their present process coming from the recent report is heavily influenced by church agencies such as the Salvos and St. Vinnies and church social justice bureacracies. Funding and program guidelines for independent community agencies are designed within victim/saviour models of welfare theory.
4/ The alternative model of cooperative self managed housing including Aboriginal and youth housing that evolved decades ago has been, in Qld, that I know about, totally dismantled and reintegrated into mainstream public housing programs - not by Howard but by the Beattie/Bligh machine.
“Community” housing/homelesness agencies are just the shop-front for dysfunctional and inadequate church and government programs.
24. Angharad
Thanks for that. As you have had some first hand experience of assissting people in that situation.
I by no means meant that the problem is majority by choice. The group I am reffering to are the more extreme substance abusers.
People whod rather spend a week blotto in the gutter than be housed and sober. I wouldnt even know what % of the homeless theyd cover, not much, but when people hear “homeless” thats what tends to spring to mind. Largely because thats the most visible part.
In an ideal world they could be “cured”, but because thay are no longer even moved along from most cities public spaces, they will always be a millstone for the “respectable” homeless.
Actually John, you aren’t correct about homelessness agencies in Queensland. Not that it probably matters that much. The Salvos and Vinnies tend to take on the high visibility homelessness shelters in the inner city areas. These are the agencies that deal with people who would mostly be rough sleepers. These services are high volume and provide a bed for the night and a feed with limited referrals. The model of service delivery is problematic because it is at best a bandaid and is a mitigation strategy and not a solution strategy.
But the vast majority of homelessness services aren’t run by the major churches. Most youth refuges are run by community agencies that have little or no involvement with churches. Or they are the women’s DV services, or they are family support agencies out in the suburbs.
But I agree that there’s a shortage of affordable housing, but I know from experience that housing by itself isn’t sufficient. Most people who are homeless, or at risk, get there because there’s a whole lot of other stuff going on in their lives. A good model is one that provides affordable housing as well as whatever supports are required by the individual to help them get stabilised. And if you can get people into housing early, all the better. Sometimes the support that’s needed is not much, other times it’s quite alot.
If it was solely a housing solution, we’d have solved homelessness quite some time ago.
“People whod rather spend a week blotto in the gutter than be housed and sober.”
If I was homeless and rough sleeping, I reckon there’s a fair chance I’d get blotto in the gutter in order to cope! One service I’m involved with seeks out the street homeless and works with them to get them into secure housing. It’s a challenge, there’s lots of mental illness out there that’s exacerbated by people’s living environment and few options to actually accommodate and support this group of people. I know the team don’t find very many people who actively want to stay on the street, they just can’t find a way out by themselves.
Yes Angharad, my perspective and obvious bias is very much an inner city Brisbane perspective, in particular West End which has always been a centre for homeless people from everywhere. This is where the homeless are, partly because of the sustainable (day to day) lifestyle offered by the various charity organisations as well as community groups operating in charity mode such as street vans. State funding for the old Hope St. Aboriginal drop in centre which provided two meals a day in a safe environment as well as access to health and other services and referral to Aboriginal hostels and housing was replaced by a van delivering food to parks. The health service previously run at Hope St. was transfered to the public toilet in Boundary St., thanks to local homelessness workers.
I agree with what you say about the need for support with other stuff but I must challenge your comment, which I suspect represents many more housing workers than yourself….. “And if you can get people into housing early, all the better”.
I suggest that until someone can get into appropriate and secure housing no other programs of addiction, violence, mental health, physical health, nutrition, education, employment, parenting skills or anything else has any chance at all of succeeding. Support programs that attempt the impossible and honourably fail serve only to justify funding authorities who can say they are tackling homelessness….. or some religious obligation.
“I suggest that until someone can get into appropriate and secure housing no other programs of addiction, violence, mental health, physical health, nutrition, education, employment, parenting skills or anything else has any chance at all of succeeding.”
I think we are in firm agreement here John. No arguments from me and I doubt you will find much argument from most of the sector.
The sad reality is that the housing bit is the hardest bit to come by, yet it’s the bit that can potentially make the most difference. That’s why many of us have spent our working lives pushing for more affordable housing, more public housing, more supported housing. I’d have to say, without alot of success so far.
It’s great to see people on this thread with real knowledge about the problem. Do you hold out much hope for the rudd govt to make major inroads into it, over time?
“It’s great to see people on this thread with real knowledge about the problem.”
So true Fine. I would still love to know, though, whether matters might not be vastly improved without judgement and jesus.
Fine, I hope so. At least it’s on the policy agenda for the first time in at least 15 years. But whether there’s real action, I’m not sure. There’s a Green Paper on homelessness due out in the next 6 weeks. I know there’s a call for significant change and big picture thinking. I’m hoping that’s in there.
and as to whether matters might not be vastly improved without judgement and jesus.” well, I’m not really in a position to answer that. I work for one of the charities in question, but whilst I subscribe to the values and am passionate about my work, I’m not a Christian.
Everyone:
Either we do something to alleviate homelessness and quasi-homelessness …. or somebody will solve it all for us …. and somehow, I don’t think you would like that at all.
mark says:
I suppose controlling guns, liberating Timor and implementing a national indirect tax system just happened to work out splendidly through Howard’s good luck and personal charm. Howard’s water conservation and carbon abation policy apparently were just off the cuff. No “long term policy thinking” to see here folks, just keep moving along.
In any case, the recent AUS political zeitgeist has been averse to long-term, large scale social reform. Look at the rejection of Hewson and Keating. The political record of the early seventies through early nineties showed that such “reforms” tended to benefit financial and cultural elites, rather than the general populace. Howard’s hand-sitting style of governance reflected popular “reform fatigue” and general social conservatism.
Howard had his hands full cleaning up the Cultural Left’s social policy messes. Ms Hanson’s movement was merely the most rabid aspect of public indignation at that problem.
Reparing the immense damage that Left inflicted on the nation’s social fabric - the subversion of immigration in the service of ethnic lobbies (”multiculturalism”) and the obscene carnival of rorting and abuse in remote communities (”indigenous self-determination”) - would be a full time job for most governments. That rather crimps the time available for high-concept policy wonkery and “the Big Picture”.
In any case, Aus’S fit and smart bourgeois citizens can mostly run their lives well enough without the pointy-headed set drawing up large-scale long term guidelines. People in their routine lives want the govt to provide efficient and plentiful community services (esp police), income transfers and public utilities. That is an important job, but not rocket science.
The one area that long-term policy planning and investment would be useful would be in the field of emerging new technologies - any sci-tech that can be digitised eg cybernetics, genetics. But wonks are not that tech-savvy and nerds are not word-savvy. So that important stuff tends to get neglected.
mark says:
I’m shocked, shocked! Democratic politician discovered playing democratic politics.
Contrary to mark’s biased and partisan interpretation, Howard govt did achieve some progress in the field of constraining homelessness. The SMH reports on the success of Howard’s early intervention scheme:
Also, Howards War on Drugs helped to reduce the incidence of homelessness. My observation in AUS & the RoW is that substance abuse is a major risk factor in homelessness. People who are drunk or drugged are unlikely to get a job, qualify for a home loan or get a lease. Or even manage the relationships requires for shared accommodation.
The other problem causing homelessness is mental disorder. Many homeless people would be better off in a mental institution. Unfortunately the best ones are being sold to property developers. The residents get dumped on the streets which is a recipe for trouble.
The worst case of homelessness are in the NT where substance abuse goes with a certain form of feral nomadism. Mr Brough made a good start on improving the housing situation in the NT by focusing on law & order and public housing stock supply. I have little doubt that Rudd will continue the indigenous intervention in order to follow up this good start.
Unfotunately Howards’ welfare pioneering was set back by his wealthfare pandering to boomers and geexzers in the property market. Negative gearing, superannuation tax privileges, reduced capital gains tax all acted to encourage a borrowing bubble in the property market.
So a more paternalist - puritanical and punitive - attitude towards boozing and doping is indicated. Otherwise public housing just becomes a haven for vice and urban blight, as has occurred in the US and UK.
I don’t know about that, but they were all ad hoc. Howard never would have contemplated either gun control or the actions in Timor without events pushing him.
And the GST was pure policy on the run. Go back and read the papers for contemporary reaction.
The rest of your comment, Jack, is just the usual Strocchisms.