<a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/developers/consolidated-properties">Consolidated Properties Group</a> (CPG) is approaching the launch of its latest Brisbane riverfront development, Castile, on the dress circle Skyring Terrace in Newstead.

VIP buyers are now being engaged, with a full public sales launch coming later this year.

Positioned as the final opportunity to secure a new absolute riverfront residence on the East bank of Newstead, Teneriffe or New Farm, Castile at 47 Skyring Terrace has been designed by <a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/architects/woods-bagot">Woods Bagot</a> as a timeless addition to the Brisbane skyline.&nbsp;

[smartcode_project:default project_id=150489 project_image_fid=371113]

The name Castile draws on themes of permanence, sophistication and legacy, reflecting a broader vision centred on enduring architecture and timelessness in the rarest of riverfront positions.&nbsp;

CPG Chairman and CEO Don O’Rorke said the project had been envisioned as a future Brisbane icon.&nbsp;

“With 47 metres of direct river frontage and never to be built out views, 47 Skyring Terrace is the definitive address on the Brisbane River,” O’Rorke said.&nbsp;

[smartcode_project:default project_id=150489 project_image_fid=371114]

“Rather than following trend-based apartment design, Castile draws inspiration from Brisbane’s great heritage buildings, reinterpreting classical architecture into a contemporary riverfront landmark designed to stand proudly for the next 100 years,” he said.&nbsp;

The approved development will comprise 227 apartments across a 25-storey tower alongside a boutique six-storey riverfront building of just 12 residences.&nbsp;

Construction is scheduled to commence in September 2026.

[smartcode_project_cta:default project_id=150489]

Joel Robinson

CPG unveils Castile Newstead ahead of upcoming sales launch

Australia’s online shopping habits have shifted dramatically over the last decade. As eCommerce volumes surged, so too did the frustrations that came with traditional parcel delivery: missed deliveries, long Post Office queues, parcel theft and the challenge of being home during business hours.

Australia Post’s Parcel Lockers emerged as one of the more practical responses to that changing consumer behaviour.

What started as a relatively niche delivery option has evolved into a nationwide network of more than 1,400 self-service Parcel Lockers positioned at train stations, shopping centres, supermarkets and Post Offices across the country. The system allows Australians to send, collect and return parcels 24 hours a day, fundamentally changing how many people interact with deliveries.

The appeal is relatively straightforward: flexibility.

Instead of waiting at home for a delivery driver or rushing to a Post Office before closing time, users can direct eligible parcels to a Parcel Locker location of their choice. Once the parcel arrives, Australia Post sends a notification with a collection code or QR access through the AusPost app, allowing customers to retrieve their package at any time within the collection window.

For apartment residents in particular, the system has become increasingly valuable.

Higher-density living has created logistical challenges around deliveries, especially in buildings without concierge services or secure parcel rooms. Missed deliveries are common, while parcel theft has become an increasing concern as online shopping volumes continue to rise.

Australia Post itself has repeatedly highlighted the growing issue of “porch pirates” during peak shopping periods, encouraging customers to use Parcel Lockers as a safer alternative to unattended home deliveries.

That security aspect is one of the key reasons the Australia Post Parcel Locker network has grown so rapidly.

Parcel Lockers are positioned as secure, monitored collection points that reduce the risk of theft while also improving delivery efficiency for Australia Post. Instead of multiple redelivery attempts, parcels can be consolidated into a single secure destination.

The Parcel Lockers themselves are free to use through a MyPost account and support a range of parcel sizes up to 16 kilograms and dimensions of approximately 35 x 44 x 61 centimetres.

Beyond receiving parcels, the system has increasingly become integrated into the broader eCommerce ecosystem.

Customers can now use Parcel Lockers to return online purchases, while retailers have embraced the model as a way to improve delivery success rates and reduce friction in the shopping process. Australia Post has actively expanded partnerships with major retailers and promoted Parcel Lockers as part of a broader out-of-home strategy.

The timing of that expansion aligns with broader changes in Australian shopping behaviour.

The acceleration of online retail during and after the pandemic placed enormous pressure on delivery infrastructure. Parcel volumes reached record highs, particularly during Black Friday and Christmas periods, with Australia Post delivering more than 100 million parcels during peak festive seasons.

That growth forced logistics providers to rethink the “last mile” of delivery, widely regarded as the most expensive and operationally difficult stage of the process.

Parcel Locker systems have increasingly been viewed as part of the long-term solution.

The concept itself is not unique to Australia. Parcel Locker networks have become common globally, particularly across Europe and Asia, where dense urban environments and apartment living create similar logistical challenges. But Australia’s geography and suburban sprawl made adoption slower initially.

Now, however, the convenience factor is driving mainstream usage.

For commuters, Parcel Lockers near train stations allow parcels to be collected on the way home from work. For apartment dwellers, they remove the uncertainty around access and missed deliveries.

The rise of the AusPost app has also streamlined the experience, centralising notifications, tracking and Parcel Locker access into a single platform. Australia Post has increasingly pushed customers toward app-based delivery management, partly as a way to combat phishing scams and fake delivery notifications, which have become more sophisticated in recent years.

The Parcel Locker model is also beginning to influence property development itself.

Parcel management has become a growing consideration in apartment building design, particularly as online shopping becomes embedded in everyday life. Many new residential developments are now incorporating dedicated parcel rooms or Parcel Locker systems into foyers and communal spaces.

For developers, parcel management is increasingly viewed as part of the broader resident amenity offering, alongside gyms, wellness spaces and communal work areas.

That reflects a wider evolution in how residential buildings are designed.

Apartment buyers are placing greater emphasis on convenience, security and operational functionality, particularly in higher-density urban environments. Parcel delivery, once considered a minor operational detail, has become an increasingly important part of that equation.

Australia Post’s Parcel Locker network sits at the centre of that behavioural shift.

What began as a simple alternative delivery option has evolved into a key piece of infrastructure supporting Australia’s growing eCommerce economy and changing urban lifestyles.

And as online shopping continues to expand, the role of Parcel Lockers is likely to become even more embedded in how Australians live, shop and receive goods.

How Australia Post Parcel Lockers changed parcel delivery convenience in Australia

Perth’s new apartment market recorded its strongest quarter of sales since Q4 2021, with 412 apartments sold in Q1 2026 and a record quarterly sold value of $537 million, according to Urbis’ latest Apartment Essentials results.

Urbis said the March quarter result reflects strong, highly product‑specific demand across both ends of the market, from more attainable projects delivering at scale, through to premium stock being absorbed by equity‑rich downsizers.&nbsp;

David Cresp, Partner at Urbis, said the key story in Perth is not demand, it is the market’s ability to convert demand into delivered housing.&nbsp;

“This is the strongest sales quarter since Q4 2021, and it reinforces that demand in Perth is real and it’s local,” David Cresp said. “But the task now is delivery, turning that demand into projects that can actually be built and completed.”&nbsp;

[smartcode_project:default project_id=110291 project_image_fid=302785]

<h2>Affordable product leads, premium demand remains resilient</h2>

Sales in Q1 were led by more affordable projects, with The Boulevard (SKS Group) recording 115 sales in the quarter, the presentation noting this is only the second time a single project has surpassed 100 quarterly sales. The project was able to offer more affordable housing product right next to a train station.&nbsp;

Palmyra West (Finbar) also delivered strong results with 28 sales in Q1, following 84 sales in Q4, with an average price of under $800,000, underscoring depth of demand for well‑located, attainable new stock.&nbsp;

At the premium end, Urbis said downsizer demand is continuing, with the results highlighting Romeo (Applecross, Finbar) recording 75 sales and reaching almost 50% sold in one quarter.

Jual (Shenton Park, Celsius Property) also posted a strong quarter with 28 sales, reaching 39% sold in one quarter.

Urbis noted that Perth apartment demand is not speculative, not investor‑led, and not uniform, describing it as localised, often equity‑driven and highly product‑specific, a pattern reflected in the polarisation between strong “attainable” performers and premium downsizer product.&nbsp;

[smartcode_project:default project_id=148957 project_image_fid=364102]

<h2>Prices underpinned by costs, and the delivery risk is growing</h2>

Urbis said pricing pressure is cost not demand‑driven: construction costs and delivery risk are now a central constraint, with the results noting build costs remain elevated and volatile, and that energy, fuel and labour uncertainty weigh on feasibility.

David Cresp said a growing challenge for private Build‑to‑Sell developers is simply securing a builder in the current environment.

“Developers are really feeling the pressure from a building market that was operating at capacity and securing a builder is challenging,” David Cresp said, adding that even where a builder can be secured, “trying to get to the price that makes the development financially viable is incredibly challenging in the current market.”&nbsp;

Urbis’ broader WA commentary also notes that industry remains at or above capacity with lot and housing creation, and that many builders are limiting new sales to manage stretched workforces and fixed‑price contract pressures, conditions that flow directly into apartment feasibility and delivery timing.

[smartcode_project:default project_id=108869 project_image_fid=317905]

<h2>Supply: improving later, but still constrained, and Perth lags eastern benchmarks</h2>

While near‑term supply remains constrained, Urbis’ forecast shows completions lifting “Supply is forecast to be back above 1,500 apartments per annum for the first time since 2019”, with 1,775 completions forecast for 2026, and volumes remaining above that level over the following years.&nbsp;

Looking further ahead, completions are forecast to reach 2,500 in 2028, with the report noting 32% of that total is social/affordable, reflecting the role of government‑supported delivery in rebuilding the pipeline.&nbsp;

However, Urbis said Perth remains behind comparable markets on pipeline scale. In a national comparison of projects under construction, the report shows under construction Perth Build‑to‑Sell (BTS) at 3,446 apartments versus the Gold Coast at 7,922. Mr Cresp said “The challenge for Perth is how to we grow the delivery pipeline”.

Urbis’ conclusion is that Perth’s market is increasingly defined by product discipline and delivery certainty, with the research identifying “delivery certainty is key” and calling out builder risk and procurement models as core success factors, alongside “timing and staging”.&nbsp;

Perth apartment sales hit strongest pace since late 2021 as builder capacity tightens

<a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/developers/sammut-developments">Sammut Group</a> has secured development approval for its latest Brisbane apartment project, marking the Sydney developer’s next step in expanding its Queensland pipeline following the success of its debut Gold Coast development, Coast.

The approved project at <a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/new-apartments/44-glen-road-toowong-qld-4066">44 Glen Road, </a><a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/developments/toowong-qld-4066">Toowong</a> will deliver a 15-storey riverfront apartment building with 42 residences, significantly increasing the scale of the site’s previous approval for a smaller luxury scheme. Designed by Bureau^proberts, the development will comprise a mix of predominantly four-bedroom and two-bedroom apartments positioned to maximise Brisbane River and city views.

Sammut Director Julian Sammut said the group had been actively searching Brisbane for several years before identifying Toowong as the right fit.

“Brisbane was the right step for Sammut,” Sammut said.

“With the success of Coast we thought we should definitely look to do more in Queensland alone. We then pushed up to look at Brisbane. We've been looking for I'd say two to three years actually and it was hard to find the right location.”

<img alt="Sammut makes Brisbane apartment play" data-entity-type="" data-entity-uuid="" src="https://res.cloudinary.com/dz9xllyip/image/fetch/f_auto,c_limit,w_1440,q_75/https://s3.ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/www.urban.com.au/s3fs-public/field/image/Screenshot%202025-12-23%20at%203.27.14%E2%80%AFPM.png?VersionId=dYAVIL7qdcGA8ojvkslSrLjczXFejSSx" />

Sammut said suburbs including New Farm and Teneriffe were considered before the group ultimately focused on Toowong due to its strong downsizer demographic and limited supply of developable riverfront land.

The site was acquired off-market after what Sammut described as a lengthy negotiation and planning process, with the developer pursuing an uplift to the original approval.

“We are DA approved now which is very exciting,” Sammut said.

“We've had our change approval come through and we've obviously doubled the height, 15 storeys plus rooftop. We've got 42 amazing apartments that are going to be coming to market soon.”

<img alt="Sammut makes Brisbane apartment play" data-entity-type="" data-entity-uuid="" src="https://res.cloudinary.com/dz9xllyip/image/fetch/c_scale,w_580,dpr_2.0,q_auto:good/https://s3.ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/www.urban.com.au/s3fs-public/inline-images/Screenshot%202025-12-23%20at%203.27.26%E2%80%AFPM.png?VersionId=ohkRkY0dIZlqdfME2EZePsCQavRiBadE" />

Bureau^proberts said the design responds to Toowong’s evolving urban character, balancing contemporary apartment living with the area’s established residential identity.

“A place where traditional Queensland living has taken place for centuries; Toowong is seeing a shift of contemporary influence, commercial and retail hubs mixed with well-considered residential offerings – all the while maintaining its character and charm,” the architect noted in planning documents submitted to Brisbane City Council.

The architecture practice said the project’s form was shaped by its riverfront setting, flood considerations, neighbouring building scales, and view corridors.

“They said the mix of four and two-bedroom apartments capture the ‘fundamental qualities of Queenslander living,’ translated into the context of a contemporary subtropical building.”

The development sits just off Coronation Drive within walking distance of Toowong’s retail precinct and the upgraded Regatta ferry terminal, while also benefiting from proximity to the incoming green bridge connection to West End. Sammut said the accessibility and amenity offering were central to the site’s appeal.

The approval adds to growing residential activity along the Toowong riverfront, joining nearby projects including Consolidated Properties’ Monarch Residences and Spyre Group’s ARC Residences.

Sammut secures approval for debut Brisbane apartment development in Toowong

Developer Lanevick is heading back into Sydney’s apartment market after focusing more heavily on the luxury townhouse and terrace sector in recent years.

Lanevick, founded and directed by Steve Maroun, is expecting to receive approval in the coming months for a new apartment development in Gladesville, with the aim to launch it to the market later this year.

The 51-apartment project, designed by Studio Johnston, will comprise a mix of one-, two-, and three-bedroom apartments positioned toward the Hunters Hill downsizer market.

“Traditionally it’s been difficult for people in that market to downsize because there just hasn’t been the right product available,” Maroun said.

“We’re targeting buyers who might have 30 to 40 per cent of their house value sitting in the bank after downsizing.

“They still want good spacious entertaining areas, they still want quality design, but they also want flexibility and the ability to enjoy life a bit more after working hard for a long time.”

The project sits near Boronia Park and within close proximity to the Parramatta River foreshore, an area Maroun says offers more of a Hunters Hill lifestyle than a traditional apartment precinct.

“From a lifestyle perspective, it’s really more Hunters Hill than Gladesville,” Maroun said. “You’re close to the foreshore, close to parklands, and still connected back into the village precinct.”

From level four and above, apartments will capture water views&nbsp;toward Sydney Harbour. Communal amenity will include rooftop entertaining areas, wellness spaces, and a gym tailored toward owner-occupier buyers.

“We’ve really designed these apartments around that buyer coming from the Hunters Hill LGA and what they’re actually looking for in their next chapter.”

The proposed development has also been designed to respond to the changing character of the broader Gladesville town centre, where a growing number of mixed-use and residential proposals are expected to emerge over the coming years.

“Gladesville presented a rare opportunity to deliver a genuinely design-led residential project within an evolving lifestyle precinct, just moments from the growing Gladesville town centre, and we’ve approached the project with a strong focus on architecture, liveability and long-term community value,” Maroun said.

Maroun said Lanevick saw a first-mover advantage within the precinct as planning controls continue to evolve to accommodate greater housing density.

“We think there’s a real opportunity there that hasn’t really been serviced properly yet,” he said.

“There’s going to be a broader evolution of the whole Gladesville village precinct over time, particularly with more activation and mixed-use outcomes.”

The Venus Street proposal will include a commercial and retail component at ground level designed to contribute to that evolving streetscape activation.

“A big part of the thinking was how do you activate that area properly and create more vibrancy and amenity, which is what Hunters Hill has been looking for,” Maroun said.

Lanevick’s focus since 2020 has largely been on smaller-scale luxury townhouse and terrace developments. The developer recently completed Royale Randwick, also designed by Studio Johnston, where prices reached $3.65 million. The project was featured in the UDIA NSW 2026 Professional Development Prospectus and was also named a finalist for Development of the Year.

&nbsp;

Lanevick to cater for Hunters Hill downsizers with new Gladesville apartment development

Homeless

<html><body>
Construction of a world-first model of intensive support and crisis accommodation for young people sleeping rough commenced this week in Melbourne.
Victorian Minister for Housing, Martin Foley, was onsite yesterday at Melbourne City Mission’s Frontyard Youth Services at 19 King Street to mark the start of the $8 million construction project, made possible by a partnership between Melbourne City Mission, the Victorian Government, philanthropists including The Peter and Lyndy White Foundation, and the property industry through the Property Industry Foundation.
The project will transform Frontyard, currently Victoria’s largest early intervention and crisis service for young people who are experiencing, or are at risk of, homelessness  into a 24/7 service with new and expanded supports.
This includes two floors of crisis accommodation for young people who are currently rough sleeping in the city and onsite mental health, drug and alcohol and disability expertise.
As part of the new world-first model, Frontyard will pioneer digital engagement strategies to more effectively connect young people into support.
The Frontyard team will also actively hit the streets to find young people sleeping rough and connect them to services.
When construction is completed in early 2019, the new Frontyard will provide a breadth, depth and intensity of support "unlike anything else found in the youth homelessness system".
The new model of support has been designed to respond to the multiple and complex needs of young people with significant trauma, who experience challenges connecting into support services.
Existing Frontyard services will remain open throughout the redevelopment, at a temporary site at 244 Flinders Street in Melbourne.
The new Frontyard will open up at 19 King Street in early 2019.
Martin Foley, Minister for Housing, Disability and Ageing said, “Victoria is leading Australia - and the world - in investing in the Frontyard model which provides a comprehensive response to youth homelessness.”
Vicki Sutton, CEO Melbourne City Mission said that “the new Frontyard is a world-first and designed to disrupt the cycle of homelessness for Victoria’s most vulnerable and hard to reach young people.”
Peter Inge, Chairman Property Industry Foundation Victoria stated that “Our mission at the Property Industry Foundation (PIF) is to work with charities who provide programs that assist at-risk and homeless young people; It is PIF’s plan to nationally create 125 bedrooms over the next 4 years.”
“We’re proud to partner with Melbourne City Mission on the new Frontyard project that will provide a world-first 24/7 program with short term accommodation for the most severely marginalised and disadvantaged youth,” Mr Inge concluded.
A number of consultants in the industry such as Ashurst, Case Meallin, Urbis, Slattery, Fender Katsalidis, NDY, Wood &amp; Grieve Engineers, Hendry Group, Equitable Access Solutions, Irwinconsult, and Built have already pledged their support with a plan to provide pro-bono services for the construction project.
</body></html>

j.ballantyne1990-6AQqhLzZaK

Construction has commenced on "world-first" response to youth homelessness in Melbourne

<html><body>
GUEST OBSERVATION
Social housing, managed by governments and the community sector, provides a safety net to vulnerable Australians. A person living in social housing is far less likely to experience homelessness than someone battling it out in the private rental market.
And some argue social housing comes with a host of other benefits, such as improvements to employment, education, incarceration rates and health outcomes.
But our research failed to find evidence of social housing residents achieving better outcomes in any of these other areas than similar residents in the private market – at least in the short run.
Prior to our research, there was limited evidence of the impact of social housing on these outcomes. State governments spend hundreds of millions of dollars providing social housing with an incomplete understanding of what that investment delivers. This needs to change.
Improving outcomes
Social housing is particularly effective at reducing homelessness because it’s affordable, as rents are typically set at around 25% of income. And Commonwealth Rent Assistance for those in the private market has been failing to keep up with increasing rental costs over recent years.
Also, social housing, particularly public housing, tends to be secure with long-term – and sometimes even life-time – leases available.
Like other welfare policies in Australia, social housing tends to be highly targeted to those with particularly low means. It has also increasingly become targeted to specific priority groups – such as those fleeing family violence or people with a disability. As at June 2017, around 395,691 households were in social housing across the country, at a cost of A$3.9 billion per year to state and territory governments.
Government policy generally assumes that providing social housing to vulnerable people will result in improvements across a range of life outcomes. As a 2017 Productivity Commission report on housing and homelessness notes:
"A lack of adequate and affordable housing contributes to housing stress and homelessness, and is detrimental to people’s physical and mental health. Homelessness affects life expectancy, with homeless people estimated to live 15–20 years less than the mainstream population."
In our research we analysed the effects of social housing on measures of these and other key outcomes as well as on the risks of incarceration and homelessness. We used the Journeys Home survey (which measures a range of characteristics over points of time of people vulnerable to homelessness placed in social housing as well as those of similar individuals not in social housing).
Comparing the outcomes for social housing residents with a statistically constructed control group, we did find placing a vulnerable person in social housing significantly reduced their risk of homelessness. In the period following placement, the person’s probability of experiencing homelessness was 13 percentage points lower than similar individuals not in social housing, who have a homelessness rate of about 20%. This is equivalent to a 65% reduction in the risk of homelessness for social housing residents.
But there were no statistically significant effects on employment, education, health (which included measures of mental health, self-assessed physical health and having a long-term health condition) or incarceration.
Already too vulnerable
The most likely explanation for this is that access to social housing has long been targeted to society’s most vulnerable members who already struggle with factors such as employment or education due to age, family commitments, disabilities and long histories of disadvantage.
Similarly, long-term health conditions – be they physical or psychological – which have been found to be associated with vulnerability to homelessness, remain even after entering social housing. Although social housing provides the stability necessary for people to seek treatment, our research tells us this doesn’t seem to flow through to measurable outcomes.
It’s also possible the effects of social housing differ across different groups of people and different types of housing. Young people, for example, may have very different employment outcomes to older people – but averaging out the results means these cohort-specific effects may be lost.
Similarly, it’s the children of residents who may be most likely to benefit from the security social housing provides. Analysis in the US found that children, particularly younger children, gained the most from experiments to improve their families’ housing situation. But we did not examine children in our analysis.
The US research also suggests it’s not just the housing that matters, but the neighbourhood too. Children of families who moved to areas with lower concentrations of poverty and crime when the children were young (below age 13) showed significantly improved educational outcomes and earnings later in life.
Why does this matter?
All of this highlights the importance of separately measuring the cohort-specific effects of programs and taking into account the neighbourhood characteristics of where people live.
Our research was unable to sufficiently take account of these factors, as we had no access to suitable large datasets, or those that include the children of residents. Much of the data that would enable this kind of analysis resides in isolation across government departments. Poor links between these sources limits researchers’ access to it.
Having access to data to conduct such analysis would give governments an opportunity to consider if the current approach of only providing social housing to the most vulnerable is optimal. Or whether they should, perhaps, expand the social housing program to capture other at-risk cohorts.
Cost-benefit analysis is routinely used to assess the value of major transport infrastructure projects. But business cases for social infrastructure projects tend to rely on qualitative assessments of benefits. We have the tools to quantify the impacts of social housing but these need to be applied to the right data.
This will help ensure governments make the right investment decisions and allocate resources more efficiently while still keeping equity concerns top of mind.
Rosanna Scutella, Senior Research Fellow, Social and Global Studies Centre, RMIT University
<img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/97446/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1">David Prentice, Principal Economic Advisor at Infrastructure Victoria, contributed to this article.
This article was originally published on <a href="http://theconversation.com" target="_blank">The Conversation</a>. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/social-housing-protects-against-homelessness-but-other-benefits-are-less-clear-97446" target="_blank">original article</a>.
</body></html>

Social housing protects against homelessness – but other benefits are less clear

<html><body>
GUEST OBSERVATION
Exactly a decade ago in 2008, the Australian government committed to an ambitious strategy to halve national homelessness by 2020. Through stepped-up early intervention, better homelessness services and an expanded supply of affordable housing, the problem would be tackled with conviction. Instead, as succeeding governments regrettably abandoned the 2008 strategy, homelessness in Australia has been on the rise.
Last week’s federal budget offered no response to this concern. And the problem is fast getting worse, as highlighted in our new Australian Homelessness Monitor, prepared for independent community organisation Launch Housing. Emulating a respected UK annual monitoring project, this report is a comprehensive national analysis of the state of homelessness in Australia together with the potential policy, economic and social drivers of the trends across the country.
Recently published 2016 Census statistics showed a 14% increase in overall homelessness in Australia since 2011. That’s well ahead of the nation’s population growth rate.
Our major cities have seen much larger rises in homelessness. Recent increases have been especially big in Sydney (up 48% since 2011), Darwin (up 36%) and Brisbane (up 32%).
Concerningly, the numbers of people sleeping rough have been growing particularly fast. This, the most visible and extreme form of homelessness, grew nationally by 20% over the 2011-2016 period.
Although offset by periodic rehousing initiatives for long-term street homeless, five-year increases in the municipalities of Sydney, Melbourne and Adelaide have exceeded the national trend. This was especially true in Melbourne. The 2016 City of Melbourne count showed numbers jumped by more than 200% over this period.
Why are the numbers soaring?
As our report this year highlights, many policies, or policy failures, are implicated in these trends. These include:
<ul>
<li>
social security system changes, such as shifting welfare benefit recipients onto lower payments with more conditions of eligibility, and increased “sanctioning” of claimants
</li>
<li>
incremental long-term impacts of inadequate welfare indexation, which have increasingly eroded the ability of lower-income Australians to afford decent housing
</li>
<li>
criminal justice policies that are increasing the prison population, which leads to a rising rate of prison discharge – a moment when the risk of homelessness is high.
</li>
</ul>
Such developments are critical in a housing market where, by international standards, subsidised social housing provision is minimal. This means the vast majority of Australia’s lower-income population must depend on an increasingly stressed private rental sector in which the stock of low-cost homes is dwindling.
Partly as a result, ABS statistics cited in our report show the proportion of low-income tenants in rental stress has risen from 35% to 44% over the past decade nationally. In New South Wales, it has risen from 43% to 51%. In Victoria, the figure rose from 32% to 47% over the decade.
The geographical pattern of recent homeless changes shows the housing market is driving these changes. Our report finds increases in homelessness have generally been much more rapid in capital cities. Non-metropolitan areas have recorded much lower growth rates, or even reductions.
In another pointer to housing market impacts, increases in homelessness have tended to be higher in the large eastern states. These are the states where economies and property markets have been relatively strong over the past few years. In South Australia, Tasmania and Western Australia, where these factors have been less evident, the rate of homeless growth has been lower.
So, overall numbers were up by 53% in inner Sydney (2011-2016), but rose by a more modest 21% in Hobart. In contrast, homeless numbers fell by over 30% in remote South Australia and Western Australia.
Governments have let this happen
Despite these stark trends, recent Australian governments, while footing the bill for homelessness services rising well ahead of inflation, have presided over cuts in social and affordable housing.
In its 2014 budget, the Abbott government cancelled the National Rental Affordability Scheme. This was Australia’s last national affordable housing construction program.
An increasingly underfunded social and affordable housing system leads to a burgeoning homelessness support system. The cost of emergency services for those lacking homes has risen by 29% in real terms over the past four years. On its current path, the cost is set to exceed A$1 billion by 2020.
Meanwhile, in the face of deteriorating public housing stock and intensifying shortage, social housing investment by state and territory governments has actually fallen by 7% since 2012-13.
Five years ago, prior to the 2013 federal election, then opposition spokeswoman on housing Marise Payne said “the Coalition’s homelessness plan” was “to abolish the carbon tax, pay down Labor’s debt, generate one million jobs in the next five years and increase our collective wealth so all of us – individuals and charities – have the capacity to help the homeless and those most in need in areas where government is not always the answer”.
While placing faith in philanthropy, such sentiment is underpinned by a stubborn belief that we can rely on market forces to provide suitable and affordable housing for disadvantaged Australians – just as much as for all other citizens. It is clear from the latest statistics that the official approach moulded by this thinking has failed.
What needs to be done?
Looking to the future, the ongoing restructuring of private rental markets seems likely to keep pushing up the numbers of people subject to housing insecurity. The availability of affordable low-rent housing continues to contract.
For any realistic chance of progress, the Australian government needs to reconfirm recognition of homelessness as a social ill that must not be ignored. It needs to re-engage with the problem, starting with a coherent strategic vision to reduce the scale of homelessness by a measurable amount within a defined period. And it needs to recommit to a level of government support that ensures enough social and affordable housing is provided to keep pace with growing need, at the very least.
<img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/95376/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1">Disappointingly, the federal budget provided no indication that such developments are in prospect. Yet squarely tackling Australia’s growing homelessness problem demands recognition that excluding people from safe, secure and affordable housing is effectively a denial of citizenship.
Hal Pawson, Associate Director - City Futures - Urban Policy and Strategy, City Futures Research Centre, Housing Policy and Practice, UNSW
Cameron Parsell, Research Fellow, The University of Queensland
This article was originally published on <a href="http://theconversation.com" target="_blank">The Conversation</a>. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/homelessness-australias-shameful-story-of-policy-complacency-and-failure-continues-95376" target="_blank">original article</a>.
</body></html>

Homelessness: Australia's shameful story of policy complacency and failure continues

<html><body>
GUEST OBSERVATION
"What’s incredible when you look at those numbers is about 30% - it’s hard to tell often - about 30% of those homeless people have a job."
– Rebecca Huntley, social researcher and author, speaking on Q&amp;A, April 23, 2018
Inequality, class and social mobility in Australia were key issues discussed on a recent episode of Q&amp;A.
Social researcher and author Rebecca Huntley noted an uptick in the idea of “the undeserving poor” in Australia – particularly where homeless people are concerned.
Huntley noted the perception held by some that homeless Australians are simply “not working hard enough”.
Challenging that narrative, Huntley said “about 30% of those homeless people have a job”.
Is that right?
Checking the source
In response to The Conversation’s request for sources, Huntley provided data from the <a href="https://www.propertyobserver.com.au/http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/mf/2049.0" target="_blank">Census of Population and Housing: Estimating homelessness, 2016</a> report, published by the Australian Bureau of Statistics in March 2018.
Huntley also pointed to the article: “<a href="https://www.propertyobserver.com.au/https://www.thesaturdaypaper.com.au/news/politics/2018/04/21/the-rise-homelessness-and-hunger/15242328006116" target="_blank">The rise of homelessness and hunger</a>”, written by Mike Seccombe and published in The Saturday Paper, and the website of “<a href="http://www.nhc.edu.au/sessions/everybodys-home-a-national-housing-campaign/" target="_blank">Everybody’s Home – A National Housing Campaign</a>”.
Huntley added:
"The <a href="https://www.propertyobserver.com.au/http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/PrimaryMainFeatures/2049.0?OpenDocument" target="_blank">definition of homelessness</a> in the Census is probably broader than community perceptions about homelessness – that is, that all homeless people are sleeping rough on the streets.
"People who are couch surfing or living in their car or living in overcrowded accommodation may well fit into this definition. They may also be working in the gig economy or getting work here and there (the double whammy of insecure work and insecure housing is quite terrible).
"What the Census 2016 data show is that there are people with post compulsory education, with various levels of work and hours worked across all categories of people living in insecure housing arrangements."
Verdict
Based on the best available data, Rebecca Huntley’s statement that “about 30% of … homeless people have a job” is correct.
According to Census 2016 data, about 30% of people who were recorded as being homeless on Census night (using the Australian Bureau of Statistics definition of homeless) were also recorded as being in the work force.
What does it mean to be ‘homeless’?
When we talk about “homelessness”, many of us would think about people “sleeping rough” on the street. This is arguably the most severe and literal form of homelessness. But the state of being homeless is more complex than that.
Under the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) <a href="http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/Latestproducts/2049.0Appendix12016?opendocument&amp;tabname=Notes&amp;prodno=2049.0&amp;issue=2016&amp;num=&amp;view=" target="_blank">definition</a>, a person can be considered homeless if their current living arrangement:
<ul>
<li>is in a dwelling that is inadequate</li>
<li>has no tenure, or if their initial tenure is short and not extendable, or</li>
<li>does not allow them to have control of, and access to space for social relations.</li>
</ul>
The ABS presents its estimates of homelessness using these groupings:
<ul>
<li>People living in improvised dwellings, tents or sleeping out</li>
<li>People in supported accommodation for the homeless</li>
<li>People staying temporarily with other households</li>
<li>People living in boarding houses</li>
<li>People in other temporary lodgings, and</li>
<li>People living in “severely” crowded dwellings.</li>
</ul>
On the night of the 2016 Census, <a href="http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/Lookup/2049.0Explanatory%20Notes12016?OpenDocument" target="_blank">more than 116,000 people</a> were counted as being homeless. This includes both children and adults. The estimates of the employment rate include only those age 15 and over.
This may be a conservative count, because some groups of people may be underenumerated (under counted) in the Census.
For example, the ABS <a href="http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/Lookup/2049.0Explanatory%20Notes12016?OpenDocument" target="_blank">notes</a> that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples’ are “more likely to be both underenumerated and over represented in the homeless population”, and that:
"So called rough sleepers and people staying in supported accommodation for the homeless are also at risk of being underenumerated in the Census."
What constitutes ‘a job’?
In the Census data, people are counted as being employed if they are of working age (age 15 and over) and:
<ul>
<li>employed and working full-time</li>
<li>employed and working part-time, and/or</li>
<li>employed but away from work.</li>
</ul>
However, not all people age 15 and over who were experiencing homelessness were counted in the Census labour force statistics. For some people, no information was recorded.
Known employment rates for homeless people
If we calculate the known employment rate for homeless people (using the ABS definition of homelessness outlined above), we find that around 30% are employed, as Rebecca Huntley said on Q&amp;A.
But the employment rate among homeless people could be higher.
That’s because we don’t have employment information for all homeless people. In the Census statistics, there are large numbers of people for whom information on employment status is missing, or not stated.
Overall, we don’t have records of the employment status of about 18% of the total homeless population.
Also, many people experiencing homelessness could be in situations where they wouldn’t be expected to work. For example, full-time students or the elderly.
This makes 30% likely to be the lower bound.
If we assume that the employment rate of those with missing information is the same as those with recorded information, the employment rate would increase to 36%. If we also excluded full-time students and the elderly from these statistics, the rate would be even higher.
Employment rate for people ‘sleeping rough’
“Sleeping rough”, or sleeping on the street, is arguably the most severe form of homelessness.
People sleeping rough are the group with the highest proportion of missing information on labour force status. The known employment rate for people sleeping rough is 10%.
If about half of the people with missing information were employed, the rate would go up to 30%. My assumption for this group is that most of those people with missing information are not employed.
So for those sleeping rough, the employment rate is probably closer to 10-15%.
The employment rate for people in supported accommodation is also likely to be around 10-15%. These two groups are those usually considered when a more literal definition of homelessness is used.
But as outlined in this FactCheck, the state of being “homeless” is more complex and wide ranging than that.
‘Journeys Home’ survey
Another useful data set on homelessness and employment is the Melbourne Institute’s Journeys Home survey, of which I was the Deputy Director.
This longitudinal survey, which began in 2011 and concluded in 2014, included 1,682 people in Australia flagged by Centrelink as either “homeless” or “at-risk of homelessness”.
The survey also included a group of income support recipients who were not flagged as homeless, but who had characteristics similar to those who had been homeless.
The overall rate of employment among all respondents was 27%. Of those who were homeless, 19% were employed.
In our study, however, we did not include those in overcrowded accommodation as being homeless. (These people are identified as being homeless in the Census).
This highlights the importance of the definition of “homelessness” used when considering the characteristics of the homeless population.
It’s also important to remember that just because someone isn’t employed doesn’t mean they don’t want to be employed, or aren’t seeking employment. Being homeless is a significant barrier to gaining – and retaining – a job.
Blind review
I agree with the verdict of this FactCheck that the overall rate of employment among people experiencing or being at-risk of homelessness is in the vicinity of 30%.
I would add that findings from <a href="https://pursuit.unimelb.edu.au/articles/the-grim-cycle-of-homelessness-and-unemployment" target="_blank">my research</a> using the Journeys Home data reveal that homelessness is more strongly associated with difficulty in retaining employment than with finding employment. – Neha Swami
Rosanna Scutella, Senior Research Fellow, Social and Global Studies Centre, RMIT University
This article was originally published on <a href="http://theconversation.com" target="_blank">The Conversation</a>. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/factcheck-qanda-do-about-30-of-homeless-people-have-a-job-95514" target="_blank">original article</a>.
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/162128/original/image-20170323-13486-72k52f.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=1000&amp;fit=clip"><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/162128/original/image-20170323-13486-72k52f.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=237&amp;fit=clip" alt=""></a>
The Conversation FactCheck is accredited by the International Fact-Checking Network.
 
</body></html>

Do 'about 30% of homeless people have a job'?

<html><body>
GUEST OBSERVATION
Revitalisation projects aimed at increasing residential populations in inner urban areas since the 1980s have resulted in almost wholesale expulsion of the marginally housed. The now mythic “doughnut city” that Melbournians became so embarrassed about, and so proud to repopulate, was in fact a city that housed its homeless.
The critic John Berger observed: "The 20th-century consumer economy has produced the first culture for which a beggar is a reminder of nothing."
We might ponder his concern in the Australian city today where the homeless have never been more visible and yet so ignored in mainstream urban discussion.
Infrastructure Australia’s recent report, Future Cities: Planning for our growing population, doesn’t mention homelessness once. This is sadly typical of major urban policy statements in the past few decades, many of which have championed inner-city renewal.
From doughnut city to cafe society
Melbourne, like most Western cities, experienced population decline in its core from the 1960s as relentless suburbanisation drew population outwards.
In 1977, the Melbourne Metropolitan Board of Works chairman, Alan Croxford, lamented: "Melbourne’s trend towards a ‘doughnut’ type of development is revealing the first signs of serious problems experienced in other cities of the world."
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/212173/original/file-20180327-109193-1ujvgrb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=1000&amp;fit=clip"><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/212173/original/file-20180327-109193-1ujvgrb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=237&amp;fit=clip" alt=""></a>
The Department of Infrastructure’s 1998 report, From Doughnut City to Café Society. Author provided
Similarly, Jan Ghel describes Melbourne in the 1970s as a “neutron-bombed” city. The architectural commentator Norman Day portrayed it as “an empty useless city centre”.
The “doughnut” trope certainly stuck in the planning imagination. Urban strategies and programs in the 1990s were decidedly aimed at reintroducing a residential population and revitalising the city centre.
The Postcode 3000 program and the Keys to the City campaign were a resounding success. Residential accommodation in central Melbourne increased from 738 units in the 1980s to 9,895 units by 2002. The figure today is nearly 30,000 units.
This renaissance has been retailed and celebrated globally. It is, however, partial truth. The uplift was certainly not felt by all.
Melbourne when relief was cheap
<img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/212174/original/file-20180327-109193-p7cbuv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=754&amp;fit=clip" alt="">
Gordon House Lodgings in Little Bourke Street, in the late 1960s, had about 500 beds. Alan Jordan/State Library of Victoria
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/212175/original/file-20180327-109182-cj27t9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=1000&amp;fit=clip"><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/212175/original/file-20180327-109182-cj27t9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=237&amp;fit=clip" alt=""></a>
Relocated to Lorimer Street, Gordon House had about 300 beds. Graeme Butler, 1982
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/212179/original/file-20180327-109182-9nqpt4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=1000&amp;fit=clip"><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/212179/original/file-20180327-109182-9nqpt4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=237&amp;fit=clip" alt=""></a>
Aerial view of Gordon House on South Wharf, 1979. Wolfgang Sievers/National Library of Australia
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/214444/original/file-20180412-549-19unoty.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=1000&amp;fit=clip"><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/214444/original/file-20180412-549-19unoty.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=237&amp;fit=clip" alt=""></a>
Aerial view of South Wharf showing the Melbourne Exhibition Centre, built in 1996, located where Gordon House used to be. <a href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/popcorncx/155407300/" target="_blank">Stephen Edmonds/Flickr</a>, <a href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/" target="_blank">CC BY-SA</a>
The “doughnut city” in fact offered cheap accommodation for the marginal and homeless. This included night shelters, rooming houses, private residential hotels, and crisis accommodation.
Gauging the exact number of low-cost beds in the inner city at this time is difficult. Homeless population estimates and reported losses in crisis and transitional housing during this period give us some idea.
Alan Jordan’s seminal work on Melbourne’s inner-city homeless population in 1973 noted: “… at any given time in the period there were at least 3,000 and probably 4,000 homeless men within two or three miles of the centre of Melbourne who were currently using night shelters, lodging houses and handouts”.
A 1984 report on the City of Melbourne and its homeless indicated that about 3,700 rooming house rooms were available for rent. These housed an estimated 4,500 people.
In 1990, a report by the Council for Homeless Persons and the Victorian Council of Churches estimated that each night, within 5 kilometres of the GPO, there were 4,000 people in large rooming houses and private hotels, 930 in crisis accommodation, and 530 in squats and sleeping rough. The report estimated that rooming house stock had shrunk by 48% in the seven years from 1981 to 1988.
The erosion of low-cost accommodation in the 1980s and ’90s made way for the repopulation of inner Melbourne. A 1998 study on rough sleeping commissioned by the City of Melbourne reported an overall reduction of 78% in short-term housing stock between 1987 and 1997. This amounted to the loss of 1,400 crisis accommodation and low-cost hotel beds.
This transitional housing was hardly ideal, but its loss deprived homeless people of temporary shelter and no doubt contributed to burgeoning numbers of rough sleepers. It also signifies that Melbourne’s “doughnut city” was never entirely hollowed out. It offered relief to, and was occupied by, the homeless.
More homeless, more visible
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/212180/original/file-20180327-109196-1pxizul.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=1000&amp;fit=clip"><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/212180/original/file-20180327-109196-1pxizul.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=237&amp;fit=clip" alt=""></a>
Remnants of Melbourne’s Skid Row: Three private hotels on the corner of Spencer and Flinders streets had about 268 low-cost rooms, early 1980s. Public Record Office Victoria<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/212182/original/file-20180327-109193-18z8gq9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=1000&amp;fit=clip"><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/212182/original/file-20180327-109193-18z8gq9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=237&amp;fit=clip" alt=""></a>
Sir Charles Hotham Hotel on Skid Row, which sold last year for a speculated $30 million. Melbourne History Workshop
Recently released 2016 Census results estimate about 116,000 people are homeless on any given night in Australia. Rough sleepers represent just 7% of the homeless population, but are increasingly visible in Australian cities.
In Melbourne, the increasing visibility of homelessness sits jarringly alongside its growing prestige as a thriving, culturally diverse and vibrant city. Being crowned the world’s “most liveable city” seven years in a row has helped to resurrect the narrative of “Marvellous Melbourne”.
Significant work has been done over this time to provide specialist homelessness services and support in the inner city. But accompanying low-cost accommodation to house the users of these services has become ever more residual. With about 36,000 applicants on the social housing register, and very little increase in supply, the demand for crisis and transitional accommodation is mounting.
Urban renaissance, a mixed tale
Urban redevelopment and displacement are intertwined trends familiar to many cities around the world. As with Melbourne, these revitalisation stories are often partial accounts, which smother more subjugated histories of a city.
By celebrating the demise of a doughnut city and its replacement by a superior café society, “liveable Melbourne” overlooks the vast dispersal that made way for a residential population that reinforces the commercial prospects of the city. The previous, more marginal city dwellers are simply abandoned. Versions of this are recurring today.
None of this is to wish a return to the past but to remind us of what can be lost in contemporary urban narratives – in this case Melbourne’s history of homeless occupation and subsequent displacement.
To heed Berger, the swelling of homelessness should remind us of the property dysfunction and spatial injustice that underlie our cities’ seeming prosperity. We can celebrate successes, but must also concede that urban renaissance is often a mixed tale of blinding optimism for the elite and cruel loss for the poor. Planning for future cities ought to take more care.
Claire Collie, PhD candidate in Urban Planning, University of Melbourne
Brendan Gleeson, Director, Melbourne Sustainable Society Institute, University of Melbourne
This article was originally published on <a href="http://theconversation.com" target="_blank">The Conversation</a>. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/melbournes-doughnut-city-housed-its-homeless-93062" target="_blank">original article</a>.
</body></html>

The story of how Melbourne’s ‘doughnut city’ housed its homeless

<html><body>
GUEST OBSERVER
The 30% increase in the number of homeless people between the 2006 and 2016 censuses is likely to continue in the absence of evidence-based public housing policy. We need to rapidly extend public housing and services, according to housing and homelessness research.
Despite this research, the common approach by governments, in Australia and overseas, is to adopt a program of “renewal” and “regeneration” funded by the transfer of public lands to private hands. Housing estates are sold, transferred or redeveloped in partnership with a private developer. This often results in a shift of social housing dwellings from 100% publicly owned to mixed forms of tenure.
For public housing residents, being told that their estate is to be “renewed” is destabilising and can cause extreme stress. A lack of clarity about relocation timelines and processes compounds this.
<img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/212559/original/file-20180329-189816-orifz6.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=754&amp;fit=clip" alt="">
The Northcote housing estate in Melbourne occupies prime real estate along Merri Creek. David Kelly
Similar issues in Sydney, Melbourne and London
Residents’ acceptance of this “renewal” approach varies greatly. While some are happy with the promise of a new home, opposition is growing in Australia and internationally.
The main issues being contested are planning approaches, consultation processes and the loss of public land overseen by housing authorities steering estate regeneration.
In Sydney, the government’s Communities Plus program is redeveloping public housing assets and land through partnerships with not-for-profit and private developers.
The City of Melbourne recorded a 74% increase in the numbers of people sleeping rough between 2014 and 2016. Opposition to the government’s public housing renewal program is now growing in Melbourne. The government is relocating residents from nine inner-city housing estates, demolishing homes and transferring public land to private developers.
In London, Harringey Council is working with Australian developer Lendlease to transfer over £2 billion in council assets, including several housing estates across the borough. In response, the Stop-HDV campaign is challenging the partnership and lack of community consultation through direct action, political campaigning, media representation and an ongoing legal challenge.
Opposition is fuelled by the redevelopment of the Heygate estate in Elephant and Castle. This has resulted in the loss of over 1,000 social housing units at council rental rates.
Affordable housing stock, rented at 80% of the standard market rate, replaced social housing. This makes it difficult for low-income residents to return to the estate.
Residents struggle to be heard
While government and developers undertake forms of consultation, residents affected by renewal repeatedly report that their voices are not being heard. This poses major problems for the reception of viable alternatives presented to development authorities by residents.
At a local scale, residents work to find other ways to make their voices heard. Visible across Sydney, a community light sculpture at the Waterloo estate expressed residents’ feelings about the redevelopment of their homes through coloured lights.
Other responses to regeneration by estate residents include theatre, book writing, spoken word and street art.
<img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/212561/original/file-20180329-189795-12antvi.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=754&amp;fit=clip" alt="">
Graffiti protests against the sale of the Northcote estate. David Kelly
In Melbourne, the government claims the “renewal” of the nine estates will result in an increase of 180 (10%) public housing dwellings.
This claim requires closer scrutiny. On the Northcote estate, for example, there are 85 dwellings with 201 bedrooms. According to a government-commissioned report from September 2017, the public component of the redevelopment will have 96 properties with 139 bedrooms. That’s an 11% increase in dwellings, but a 31% decrease in bedrooms.
Even if the overall number of public housing bedrooms increased by 10%, this would not be enough. According to the Victorian Housing Register, in December 2017 there were over 36,000 applications for public housing and over 7,000 waiting for more adequate housing.
Alternatives need to be heard
One of the underpinning assumptions made by government is that dispersing disadvantage will lead to better outcomes for public housing residents.
This, and the resulting social mix, is the rationale for the program. This assumption is completely flawed. It imagines a fallacy of trickle-down socioeconomics achieved through minimal government spending.
<img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/212560/original/file-20180329-189795-h4y7xt.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=754&amp;fit=clip" alt="">
A boarded-up public housing residence on the Northcote estate. David Kelly
Academic experts and public housing resident activists continually express their objections to the rhetoric of renewal. Kate Shaw, an urban geographer with expertise in housing and planning, says: "Pretty much everything about the program in its current approach is wrong."
Delegates at a December 2017 public housing forum in Melbourne called on the government to impose a moratorium on the process so alternatives can be heard. Yet voices continue to be ignored.
The progressive rhetoric of renewal obscures the displacement of residents, the fragmentation of lives and the privatisation of the public realm. Narratives of improvement drown out objections by residents and the wider public. Any argument against renewal is falsely equated with an argument against improving the lives of public housing residents.
This misdirection infects the public discourse around housing more generally. We are witnessing the complete reorganisation of the home. We think of homes as exchangeable stock.
For residents of public housing estates, the public realm is home, and home is a place of sanctuary and respite. The voices of residents need to be to the fore in the conversation if evidence-based public housing policy is to prevail. Retaining public places should be of interest to all who count themselves as part of the public.
David Kelly, PhD Candidate, Alfred Deakin Institute for Citizenship and Globalisation, Deakin University
<img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/93655/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1">This article was written in conversation with public housing advocate and resident William Gwynne. The author thanks William for his integral insights.
This article was originally published on <a href="http://theconversation.com" target="_blank">The Conversation</a>. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/voices-of-residents-missing-in-a-time-of-crisis-for-public-housing-93655" target="_blank">original article</a>.
</body></html>

Voices of residents missing in a time of crisis for public housing: David Kelly

<html><body>
GUEST OBSERVER
Ten years ago the Australian government launched a National Partnership Agreement on Homelessness (NPAH). It injected A$800 million into homelessness services and A$300 million to build 600 new homes for people experiencing homelessness. It was later announced that another A$400 million would be available under the National Affordable Housing Agreement (NAHA) to build new housing and supported accommodation for the homeless. Total recurrent expenditure (at 2016-17 prices) on homelessness services has increased by 28.8%, from A$634.2 million in 2012-13 to A$817.4 million in 2016-17.
But despite this, the number of people experiencing homelessness and the rate of homelessness have both increased. Our research points to problems in the public housing system as one of the more important causes of these increases.
According to census figures released on Wednesday by the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS), the number of homeless people in Australia has risen by 14% to 116,427. The rate of homelessness has increased from 47.6 people per 10,000 of the population in 2011, to 49.8 per 10,000 now. (The ABS defines homelessness here.)
There is some good news: the numbers of Indigenous homeless and homeless children and youth (aged 12-18) have declined by 26%, 11% and 7% respectively since 2011. But on the downside, increases are particularly pronounced in New South Wales (where the homelessness rate rose by 27% and among people aged over 65 (by just over 30%) and overseas-born migrants (by 40%).
Why are we still going backwards?
Changes in Australian housing and welfare systems and wider social and economic developments appear to have more than offset any benefits from the NPAH and NAHA. Our research sheds some light on the role played by Australia’s housing system. Using the internationally recognised and unique Journeys Home longitudinal survey, we find that public housing is the most important factor in preventing homelessness among vulnerable people.
Public housing is particularly effective because it is affordable. It has also traditionally offered a long-term refuge for precariously housed people. This is because public housing leases provide the benefits of security of tenure commonly associated with home ownership.
It is perhaps no accident that NSW was one of the first states to introduce fixed-term tenancies in public housing. This eroded one of the major attributes of tenure, in a state that has seen relatively large increases in homelessness numbers.
The empirical evidence also suggests that community housing fails to provide the same protection for people at risk of homelessness. While community housing is affordable, the security of tenure is weaker, which may explain these findings.
Despite such evidence, the stock of public housing continued to decline between the 2011 and 2016 censuses. State government-initiated transfers of stock to the community housing sector accelerated this trend. In 2013 Australia had a public housing stock of 325,226 dwellings. This declined by 3.2% to 314,864 usable dwellings in 2017.
Where are the additional homeless coming from?
One of the more alarming changes is a sharp increase in the number of homeless people over 65. This partly reflects Australia’s ageing population. However, the increase is such that the elderly’s share of the total homelessness count has also risen.
Furthermore, our research suggests that this trend could become protracted. This is because the homeless elderly have much less chance of escaping into formal housing than younger people experiencing homelessness. We have little understanding of the reasons for this, but gaps in service provision to the aged could be partly responsible.
The other group who feature prominently among the homeless are overseas migrants. They now make up 46% of the homeless, despite representing just 28% of the Australian population. The number of homeless overseas-born migrants has soared by 40% since the 2011 Census, from 38,085 to 53,606 people.
It turns out that homeless overseas-born migrants are concentrated among those living in severely overcrowded dwellings – a little over half of those living in these conditions were born overseas. We know little about these homeless people. Discrimination could be a factor, though some characterise this group as students living in group households who should not be considered homeless. But this is speculation and further study is certainly required.
In view of the latest census results, it is clear to us that governments need to reassess their approach to what is turning into an intractable social problem.
We do not deny that situational factors, such as drug abuse, domestic violence and so forth, are important here. But equally, there is strong evidence that structural problems in our housing market are a significant cause of growth in the numbers of homeless people.
<img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/93417/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1">Until these problems are resolved, service provision and support will remain a band-aid masking deeper social and housing system issues.
Gavin Wood, Emeritus Professor of Housing and Housing Studies, RMIT University
Guy Johnson, Professor, Urban Housing and Homelessness, RMIT University
Juliet Watson, Lecturer, Urban Housing and Homelessness, RMIT University
Rosanna Scutella, Senior Research Fellow, Centre for Applied Social Research, RMIT University
This article was originally published on <a href="http://theconversation.com" target="_blank">The Conversation</a>. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/homeless-numbers-will-keep-rising-until-governments-change-course-on-housing-93417" target="_blank">original article</a>.
</body></html>

Homeless numbers will keep rising until governments change course on housing

<html><body>
GUEST OBSERVER
Sport, race and racism are entwined. It was always so, and it will always will be so – even in the Commonwealth Games, the event we dub the “friendly games”.
In a throwback to the 1982 Commonwealth Games in Brisbane, preparations for next month’s event on the Gold Coast are forcing the homeless to move out of town, and even out of the state – to Tweed Heads in New South Wales. Women who run soup kitchens for the poor and indigent have been told to close their shops until these “friendly games” are over.
Australia, the Commonwealth Games, and race
In the 1930s, Australia’s sporting authorities deemed the previously named Empire Games worthier than the Olympics. Empire above all else, Australia second, was the motto.
Some British officials even advocated a British Empire Olympic team. The Empire Games appealed to “a narrower local patriotism” and that was the healthier way to go, The Sydney Morning Herald editorialised, hinting that Australia avoid intimate contact with “foreigners” at the Olympics. But all that changed after the second world war.
The “friendly games” have since tended to be the tense and the nervous games. Race has marred several events. Australia made extraordinary efforts to keep South Africa and (the then) Rhodesia in the fold when no-one else wanted to have dealings with them.
A near-calamitous era for sport resulted from the highly divisive Springbok rugby union tours to Australia (1971) and to New Zealand (1981), the 28-African nation boycott of the Montreal Olympics (1976) – because of New Zealand–South Africa rugby ties – and the 61-nation boycott of the Moscow Olympics because of the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan (1980).
Many will remember Commonwealth Games head Arthur Tunstall threatening to punish Cathy Freeman for wrapping herself in an Aboriginal flag in Canada at the 1994 Games. This was hardly the friendliest event on racial matters, and we can tie them to Moscow.
The Moscow Olympics in 1980 was held at the time of Western outcry at the treatment of “dissidents”, of refuseniks – those refused the right to emigrate to Israel and elsewhere. Aimed mainly at Jews, refusal also applied to Ukrainian Greek Catholics, Jehovah’s Witnesses and Volga Germans. By the time of the Olympics, the ban on Jews had been lifted (largely through Australian-led pressure), but some were still being held as financial hostages.
To give the appearance and the message that Moscow was “clean”, the Soviet regime removed all the “unsightly ones” from that city for the two weeks of sport.
Remembering the protests of 1982
Two years after the Moscow Olympics, in September 1982, Brisbane hosted the Commonwealth Games. At the helm of draconian government was Joh Bjelke-Petersen, a fundamentalist Lutheran and a man intolerant of democracy and its institutions. He ruled Queensland from 1968 to 1987.
Bjelke-Petersen placed all of Queensland under a state of emergency, declaring martial law, when the Springbok rugby team toured, disastrously for all, in 1971. He made dubious history as the first leader in a democracy to declare a state of emergency in peacetime over a sporting event. Martial law reigned for three weeks to enable matches, with indemnities given to all police against lawsuits.
The Bjelke-Petersen government passed the Commonwealth Games Act, a statute not commented on then or later. The law ensured Brisbane was free of Aboriginal people and their “friends”.
Possibly the Western world’s most punitive law on sport, police had the power under the act to declare a state of emergency. It also gave specially deputised non-police full police powers and enabled seizure of people and property “on suspicion”.
The act provided for palm, foot, toe and voice-printing, with a A$2,000 fine or two years’ jail for offences under the act, and disallowed any consequent criminal or civil charges against real or “temporary” police. But human rights organisations – especially the vociferous rights body in Queensland – said nary a word on this statute.
Bjelke-Petersen was adamant there would be no Aboriginal land rights marches in Brisbane at that time, and the statute was meant to ensure that. By coincidence or not, the ABC ran a Saturday-night Four Corners special program on land rights mid-Games, and that led to much press publicity.
I was there, reporting on the event for The Australian. Two land rights marches took place, peacefully.
<img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/211465/original/file-20180321-165557-aql49b.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=754&amp;fit=clip" alt="">
Land rights marches attracted foreign media attention at the 1982 Commonwealth Games in Brisbane. Museums Victoria
Interestingly – but not surprisingly – the British, Canadian and New Zealand journalists were much more interested in learning about the Aboriginal story than in the sporting contests, and I was able to help them file stories of greater import than the discus thrower’s ankle.
Aboriginal protests didn’t stop or disrupt the Games, and police generally behaved politely. True, there was a great deal of camera scrutiny of events. The land rights marches hastened native title change in Queensland, with the Mabo case starting that year and ending in native title in 1992.
In America as in Australia
Atlanta was the low-water mark of a city using anti-loitering statutes to keep it “clean” during the 1996 Olympics. Whole suburbs were vacuumed to eliminate the “black spots”, literally.
So, two decades on, what are sports officials and governmental authorities still so afraid of? That we will be seen as a normal country, with normal problems like poverty, homelessness and hunger?
<img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/93488/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1">Are we really still mired in the mentality of yesteryear — that the deranged, the mentally ill, the vagrant must be kept out of sight lest they remind us of human frailty?
Colin Tatz, ANU Visiting Professor, Politics and International Relations, Australian National University
This article was originally published on <a href="http://theconversation.com" target="_blank">The Conversation</a>. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-commonwealth-games-of-exclusion-what-are-authorities-so-afraid-of-93488" target="_blank">original article</a>.
</body></html>

The Commonwealth Games of exclusion: why are authorities so afraid of homeless people?

<html><body>
<h1>
<a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/teresa-somes-412706" target="_blank" style="font-family: Tahoma, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12.16px;">Teresa Somes</a>, <a href="http://theconversation.com/institutions/macquarie-university-1174" target="_blank">Macquarie University</a>
</h1>
One of the most pressing challenges older Australians face is finding secure accommodation with suitable amenities. And as the numbers of older Australians grow, the pressure to provide housing that meets their needs is increasing. We may be facing a crisis of ageing homelessness in coming years.
A new <a href="https://www.missionaustralia.com.au/news-blog/news-media/mission-australia-report-shows-homelessness-is-a-growing-concern-for-older-australians" target="_blank">report</a> from Mission Australia has called on all levels of government to act immediately on the critical shortage of appropriate housing and support services for older Australians at risk of homelessness.
A look at the trajectory of Australia’s ageing population gives a clear sense of the urgency of this issue. Today, <a href="http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/Lookup/by%20Subject/2071.0%7E2016%7EMain%20Features%7EAgeing%20Population%7E14" target="_blank">16% of our population</a> is over 65 years of age. By 2101, <a href="https://aifs.gov.au/facts-and-figures/ageing-australia" target="_blank">25% of Australians</a> are likely to be over 65. People over 55 already make up around 17% of the homeless population – and this figure is likely to grow.
Affordable housing and related aged care services are already in short supply. Evidence of this is the increasing numbers of older homeless people <a href="https://www.aihw.gov.au/reports/homelessness-services/specialist-homelessness-services-2015-16/contents/client-groups-of-interest/older-clients" target="_blank">seeking help</a> from specialised homeless services.
<h2>Why are older people more at risk?</h2>
Older Australians face the same risks of falling into homelessness as everyone else. But they also face extra challenges related to ageing. These include physical and cognitive changes, reduced earning capacity and family changes, on top of the lack of suitable housing alternatives. All these factors can put older people at greater risk of becoming homeless.
Self-funded accommodation is simply not an option for many older Australians. Many depend on social security or social housing to cover accommodation and living expenses. <a href="https://www.humanservices.gov.au/individuals/enablers/payment-rates-age-pension" target="_blank">Age Pension payments are modest</a> – a maximum of A$407 per week for single people and A$613.60 for couples – which might be enough if people have adequate superannuation and own their home by the time they retire. Many do not.
The combination of low incomes and rising living costs is a significant factor in older people’s homelessness. The supply of private rental housing or social housing for people on very low incomes is limited.
Even if social housing is available, many of the complexes are poorly maintained or have mixed tenancy. This can cause older people to feel intimidated and isolated.
As rents continue to <a href="https://www.propertyobserver.com.au/http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-02-01/sydney-rental-prices-climb-as-more-new-units-are-built/8228872" target="_blank">climb</a>, private renting is beyond the means of many older people. Age discrimination further narrows the restricted market of affordable housing. Landlords may prefer tenants who are receiving a regular income from employment.
People with health problems, including mobility and cognitive impairment, and who require greater support may become unable to maintain their present living arrangements. However, they may also be unable to find or afford accommodation that caters for their needs.
Older people who have suffered elder abuse, in particular financial abuse or failed family accommodation arrangements, are especially vulnerable. <a href="https://theconversation.com/global/topics/elder-abuse-5798" target="_blank">Elder abuse</a> is commonly inflicted by close family members. This can both impoverish an individual and isolate them from family support networks.
<h2>Which groups are most vulnerable?</h2>
<a href="http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/nsw/ageing-women-in-financial-strife-the-new-face-of-australian-homelessness/news-story/22d4462e281e2d3b4f6b43b243d85406" target="_blank">Older women</a> are especially at risk. Many women who have raised children and not been in secure paid employment have little or no superannuation in later years. This leaves them with reduced capacity to support themselves, particularly if they have fled family violence.
Traditionally, support services are aimed at younger women with children. Mission Australia has called for investment in housing tailored to the needs of older women experiencing <a href="http://www.ownnsw.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/ItCouldBeYou.pdf" target="_blank">family violence</a>.
Mission Australia has also identified disproportionate numbers of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders among the homeless population. Overcrowded housing is a key factor here. In 2011, <a href="http://apo.org.au/system/files/40448/apo-nid40448-20316.pdf" target="_blank">74% of Indigenous people</a> were living in severely overcrowded dwellings.
<h2>What needs to be done to reduce homeless?</h2>
Significant funding is certainly needed to overcome the ever-growing problem of homelessness in our ageing population. Older Australians are not a homogeneous group. Housing options need to be provided that meet the needs of people with different financial, social, physical and cognitive capabilities.
Funding is also need to put support in place not only to allow people to move from homelessness to permanent accommodation, but also to counter the factors that lead to homelessness. These include the shortage of affordable rental accommodation, lack of accessible support networks, and financial insecurity for older people on low incomes.
Alternative housing options could include <a href="http://www.seniorresource.com/hcf.htm" target="_blank">congregate housing</a>. In this model, tenants live in units but support staff are on site. Another possible model is <a href="https://www.propertyobserver.com.au/https://academic.oup.com/gerontologist/article/51/3/406/560563" target="_blank">campus housing</a> where villages contain housing with different levels of care. If tenants’ level of care changes, they can move to other housing in the village.
Alternative housing for those who are more independent include <a href="http://www.homelessnessnsw.org.au/news/older-womens-studio-development-project" target="_blank">share housing models</a>, which aim to provide low-cost accommodation to homeless women. Government financial incentives for <a href="https://theconversation.com/how-can-we-best-design-housing-for-australias-ageing-population-50304" target="_blank">alternative housing</a> such as granny flats and co-ownership would also <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/mar/20/housing-affordability-is-not-just-about-youth-15000-seniors-are-living-on-the-streets" target="_blank">help ease the demand</a> on government-run housing facilities.
<img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/87685/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1">The need for appropriate housing for our ageing population is urgent. The rise in homelessness among older people is sad but clear. Governments must prioritise research and implementation of a range of accommodation options to better prepare Australians for the challenges of finding suitable housing as they get older.
<a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/teresa-somes-412706" target="_blank">Teresa Somes</a>, Associate Lecturer, <a href="http://theconversation.com/institutions/macquarie-university-1174" target="_blank">Macquarie University</a>
This article was originally published on <a href="http://theconversation.com" target="_blank">The Conversation</a>. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/more-and-more-older-australians-will-be-homeless-unless-we-act-now-87685" target="_blank">original article</a>.
</body></html>

More and more older Australians will be homeless unless we act now

<html><body>
GUEST OBSERVER
I’m deeply concerned by how many people are sleeping rough or homeless in our city.
It's not illegal for people to be homeless – for some people it’s an inevitable consequence of the housing affordability crisis in Sydney.
The City’s doing more than any other local government in the country.
Specialist homelessness services funded by the City helped more than 320 people access housing with support and prevented more than 450 people from becoming homeless last year.
But virtually all the levers of power and responsibility lie with the state government.
What we’re seeing in Martin Place is the direct consequence of decades of gutless inaction from successive State Governments.
Instead of investing in more social housing in our area, they’ve kicked people out of their homes and sold them to the highest bidder.
City staff are actively working to keep Martin Place safe and clean but we have no power to forcibly move people on – only the Police can do that.
But even if the Police were directed to do that, where does the Minister expect people to go? Putting them up in hotels for three or four nights is not an answer.
The fact is you can’t solve homelessness without housing – we need long term solutions and we urgently need the NSW Government to step up and do their bit.
Here’s three practical things the Minister and Government could do today:
<ul>
<li>Open Sirius and move people in – 77 homes are currently sitting empty in a building purpose built for social housing. This would immediately resolve the issue in Martin Place;</li>
<li>Support our proposal for funding for a second Common Ground development in the city – our proposal together with Mission Australia Housing and Macquarie Corporate Holdings would create 150 new affordable and social housing unit with 50 specifically designed for vulnerable homeless people; and</li>
<li>Allow the City to extend the affordable housing levy across our area.</li>
</ul>
Levies are an effective &amp; financially feasible way to deliver affordable housing units but the City is currently only allowed a levy in Green Square (which has delivered 106 units) and in Ultimo/Pyrmont (which has delivered 445 units).
If the State Labor Government in 2009 had approved our request to extend the levy it would have funded an estimated 2000 additional affordable units by now.
Our works shows that extending the levy now could deliver up to 2000+ new affordable units across our area.
Over the next three years, the City will invest $6.6 million on homeless services which includes $3.5 million for the State Government’s Family and Community Services agency to help them do their work in Martin Place and other areas.
Clover Moore is Lord Mayor of Sydney.
</body></html>

Homeless

Editor's Picks

Have something to contribute?

Developments

New apartments

New townhouses

News

Homeless

Editor's Picks

Receive the latest news stories to your inbox

Have something to contribute?

Developments

New apartments

New townhouses

News