Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

SoylentNews is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop. Only 13 submissions in the queue.
posted by janrinok on Tuesday July 09 2024, @01:38PM   Printer-friendly

Arthur T Knackerbracket has processed the following story:

There's a new bill before federal parliament calling for housing to be considered a fundamental human right.

The bill, introduced by independent federal parliamentarians Kylea Tink and David Pocock, would require the government to create a 10-year National Housing and Homelessness Plan.

One part of the bill states housing should be considered a fundamental human right for all Australians. Here's how this would work.

Since its election in 2022, the Albanese government has had to fight political battles to pass its housing policies.

This includes the Housing Australia Future Fund: a $10 billion fund to provide an annual $500 million for social and affordable rental housing. It passed the parliament last year.

There's also the "Help to Buy" shared equity scheme. Under this scheme, 10,000 households a year would be eligible for a government equity contribution of up to 40% of the purchase price of a new home. It's yet to pass the parliament.

But many in the community continue to struggle with unaffordable rents, barriers to home ownership and rising rates of homelessness.

Housing and homelessness problems are complex because they crossover different areas of policy and different levels of government. There are many agencies that do housing policy.

But so far, the government has not had a clear plan. Its election promise to develop a National Housing and Homelessness Plan is still under development. And at the moment, it does not appear to be addressing important policy areas like tax and finance.

[...] Tink and Pocock have also taken up our research and turned it into the National Housing and Homelessness Plan Bill.

The bill would require the housing minister of the day to develop and implement a ten year National Housing and Homelessness Plan. This would mean taking a view of housing policy beyond three-year election cycles.

The legislation would also set some basic directions for the government's plan, including "ensuring that everyone in Australia has adequate housing," and "preventing and ending homelessness." This reflects the legislation's human rights-based approach.

The legislation would also require the housing minister to be collaborative and establish some new sources of information and advice for government. This includes a "consumer council," including people with experience of homelessness. This would operate alongside the existing National Housing Supply and Affordability Council: an independent group providing the government with expert advice. The consumer council would be able to escalate matters directly to the minister to ensure it's heard.

The existing government agency Housing Australia would be nominated as the lead agency assisting the minister with the plan. A new government officer, the National Housing and Homelessness Advocate, would independently investigate housing policy issues and monitor the progress against the plan. The housing minister would also be required to periodically report to parliament on progress.

At the end of the ten years, the minister would be required to review and develop a new plan.

Importantly, it would still be for the government of the day to decide what's in the plan. The legislation sets objectives and directions, but not policy details. The legislation does not say, for example, "thou shalt repeal negative gearing"! One government might devise a more market-orientated plan, while another might plan for greater non-market housing provision.

[...] The bill formally recognizes housing as a human right for two reasons.

First, it serves as the constitutional basis for the legislation. The right to adequate housing is a human right under the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, which Australia ratified almost 50 years ago.

This brings it within the parliament's "external affairs" power. The parliament relied on this power and the human right to housing when it passed the original legislation establishing the National Housing Finance and Investment Corporation (now Housing Australia). Basically, it gives the government the legal authority to make such a plan.

Secondly, an effective plan that's going to work across different policy areas and bring in the range of institutions needs a place to start. Human rights provides a way to organize the policy across all the different branches of government that need to be involved.


Original Submission

 
This discussion was created by janrinok (52) for logged-in users only, but now has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 1, Disagree) by khallow on Sunday July 14 2024, @06:37AM (3 children)

    by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Sunday July 14 2024, @06:37AM (#1364050) Journal

    No, Rosco had an "extra house" in France, and these recent changes in French laws and enforcement mean that many people like Rosco will be divesting of that dubious asset - possibly buying in Florida: https://www.fox35orlando.com/news/florida-homeowners-fight-squatters-new-law-ends-scam-desantis-says [fox35orlando.com] [fox35orlando.com] Note, I'm not exactly cheering DeSantis on, just pointing out: different conditions in different countries. Just like you might purchase an "extra house" for cheap in South Sudan, but you probably wouldn't want to.

    It wasn't dubious before the state made it so. Funny how the social progress of France makes Florida with all its glaring drawbacks such an attractive investment option for actual human beings.

    Are we anywhere near such a situation? I mean, when ADM gives up growing food for profit and nobody else wants to work the fields, maybe - but that's far off fantasy at this point in time.

    We aren't need such a situation where we can't feed ourselves because we aren't near a situation where relative wealth is considered more important than absolute wealth.

    Nothing arbitrary about the top 2% having a net worth 12x (and higher than) the median and 50% of all wealth being controlled by the top 2.5%.

    It's clearly irrelevant to your argument what numbers you use. The top x% will have net worth higher than y% people who don't bother to collect wealth at all. Also you're clearly ignoring wealth from future earning power which is the classic part of wealth traditionally ignored by the broken measures of wealth today.

    I didn't mention money even once (aside from quoting someone at one point who did use the term "money"). You've mentioned it several times. The person with the erroneous focus on money is not me.

    Oh, I think you did even without using the word. Look at the logic behind your statements.

    I do look at my logic and I'm just not interested in your straw man building.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   0  
       Disagree=1, Total=1
    Extra 'Disagree' Modifier   0  

    Total Score:   1  
  • (Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Sunday July 14 2024, @11:52AM (2 children)

    by JoeMerchant (3937) on Sunday July 14 2024, @11:52AM (#1364067)

    My ancestors were successful farmers in Tennessee in the early 1800s, they also held significant value in dubious assets which the government forced them to divest, in the 1860s. Many of them diversified into the ship building industry, one descendant later became Secretary of the Navy. For better or worse, (mostly worse) my direct ancestor on that side became a school teacher, then died of tuberculosis around age 30.

    --
    🌻🌻🌻 [google.com]
    • (Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday July 14 2024, @03:43PM (1 child)

      by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Sunday July 14 2024, @03:43PM (#1364100) Journal
      Mine were farmers, shipbuilders, and fishermen in New England with some poor Texas or Louisiana mixed in there via a Denmark immigrant. Not much opportunity for slavery except perhaps in the Viking era?