An extra $115 million per year from the Australian government is sought by organisations.
Before a meeting of housing and homelessness ministers in Sydney on Friday, homeless advocacy groups demanded funds.
Faced with the threat of losing $115 million a year in federal financing for their programmes on July 1, homeless organisations have pleaded with the federal government to agree to an extension and increase in that money.
Ministers of housing and homelessness will meet in Sydney on Friday to discuss the issue.
The federal government contributes $115 million a year to the national partnership agreement on homelessness (NPAH), which is matched by state and territory governments.
Groups working with homeless people are becoming more concerned that the Coalition has not committed to funding it through June 2017, although it had agreed to do so from June 2015 to June 2017.
There were 255,000 persons who requested help last year, up from 236,000 the year before, according to the Council on Homeless Persons.
A third of the sector’s budget comes from NPAH financing, and the council predicts that the number of individuals turned away would rise from 329 to 440 each day if it isn’t extended.
NPAH has been stuck at $115 million each year, losing $10 million in value since 2013-14 as a result of not being indexed, according to council chief executive Jenny Smith.
While “homelessness is out of control,” she continued, “it’s inconceivable that you would take away the base or not even safeguard the base money.”
In Smith’s words, homelessness services were “groaning under the weight of demand,” especially challenged by the poor availability of affordable homes, meaning they had to serve individuals for extended periods of time.”
In response to a question on whether the NPAH might be carried over to the next year, Smith remarked there “seems to be some idea that assisting people is a business you can switch on and off.”
“You can’t simply switch on and off recruiting workers and expanding services capacity to serve individuals,” she added.
As an illustration, Smith used the case of a lady fleeing domestic abuse with her preschool-aged children, who would need assistance for a “significant time” as she transitioned from a crisis accommodation to a more permanent residence with continuous assistance.
The National Partnership for the Homeless wants the NPAH to be indexed and extended for at least five years, as requested by the Council for Homeless Persons.
Smith also advocated for zoning reforms that would increase the supply of cheap housing, as well as the addition of additional social housing and adjustments to the tax code pertaining to capital gains tax breaks and negative gearing.
NPAH budget cuts and other financial cliffs, according to National Shelter CEO Adrian Pisarski, have led the organization’s members, who offer housing services, to lay off employees and curtail services.
For example, NPAH-funded programmes that connect young people’s housing to education and training and incorporate wrap-around services are of great significance, he added.
An affordable home supply plan should be developed by both the federal and state governments, according to Pisarski
There is a “mechanism in place to assess NPAH financing beyond 2017,” according to Christian Porter’s spokesperson.
This year’s final report to COAG on housing and homelessness changes will be informed by Friday’s ministers meeting, she added.
Homelessness financing options will be examined in this context.
At least $275 million of the $1.3 billion allocated under the national affordable housing agreement, according to a spokesman. Rental aid was $4.4 billion, courtesy of the federal government.
Ministers’ meeting would have failed if they didn’t agree to prolong the NPAH funding and make “decisions that would immediately lead to an increase in the supply of affordable and social housing,” Doug Cameron, Labor’s housing and homelessness spokeswoman, said.
Government spending on housing and homelessness, he said, had “no evidence” of improving the availability of cheap or social housing. There’s no doubt about it: “It’s not helping the homeless.”
