Homelessness under Albanese government 'worst in living memory', peak bodies warn
The issue has reached its "worst levels in living memory", Homelessness Australia said, with analysis of data from homelessness services across the country showing women and girls fleeing domestic violence are the most affected.
The number of people accessing homelessness services each month has increased by 10 per cent since Labor was elected in May 2022, but for women and girls, the increase has been by 14 per cent, the data shows.
Despite the government's attempted focus on the housing crisis in its first term, Homelessness Australia's chief executive Kate Colvin said commitments made to social housing have not hit the mark and are condemning vulnerable families to homelessness.
"Even with those commitments, the proportion of social housing is still going to continue to fall," she said.
"We need government to do a lot more.
"This is a huge problem."
It comes as a new report from housing lobby group Everybody's Home has found social housing has declined to around 4 per cent of all homes, down from 4.7 per cent in 2013, with the group's chief executive, Maiy Azize, calling on the Albanese government to deliver more affordable rentals.
"The government mustn't take for granted the Australians who voted them in with the hope of making housing more affordable," she said.
Homelessness Australia's analysis of Australian Institute of Health and Wellbeing data shows an additional 72,000 people were turned away from services in 2023-24 — and three in four were women or children.
Ms Colvin said the shortage of reasonably priced rentals meant not only were people being forced into homelessness, but women ready to move out of a domestic violence or homelessness refuge had nowhere to go.
Last week, the ABC revealed the Treasury department advised Labor soon after it was re-elected that its signature pledge to build 1.2 million homes over five years to address the housing crisis "will not be met".
Housing and Homelessness Minister Clare O'Neil told the ABC the government has invested more than $1.2 billion in crisis and transitional housing.
"We're acutely aware of just how complex the challenge of homelessness is, which is why we continue to listen to people with first-hand knowledge right across the homelessness sector," she said.
"In this new term the government has appointed a special envoy for social housing and homelessness, Josh Burns, to work with the sector on a variety of complex problems affecting different communities."
Ms Colvin said while she appreciated the government had committed funding towards building more homes, in the meantime, homelessness services were turning away more and more people.
"The homeless services haven't had increased funding because the housing crisis has gotten worse," she said.
"They just have more people coming."
In the inner Sydney suburb of Redfern, the 200 beds at the Women's and Girls' Emergency Centre are full every night.
Its chief executive, Nicole Yade, said her staff have the "horrendous" task of choosing between desperate families whenever a bed at the refuge becomes free.
"It's an impossible choice," she said.
She said frontline workers she had spoken to found it easier to transition clients into an affordable rental five years ago than they do now.
The lack of social and affordable housing meant women and their children are often taking up beds for months longer than necessary, because they cannot afford anything in the community, Ms Yade said.
"They get stuck in the refuge," she said.
"It doesn't feel like there's been enough change for us on the ground when we're delivering services to women who are escaping family and domestic violence."
Ms Colvin said the government's commitments to housing for this term of parliament are still "not where we'd like them to be."
She is calling on the government to complete a national plan to end homelessness, invest more in homelessness services and grow social housing to 10 per cent of all dwellings.
The government began consultation on a national housing and homelessness plan in 2023, to determine a policy vision for the sector. The ABC understands that work is ongoing.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
ABC News
30 minutes ago
- ABC News
Federal politics live: Live: Macron backs PM on move to recognise Palestinian state
French President Emmanuel Macron has backed Australia's decision to recognise a Palestinian state. Follow out live coverage.
ABC News
an hour ago
- ABC News
Parramatta councillor unsuccessful in bid to seek more detail on reported ICAC raid
Councillors at Parramatta City Council have knocked back a request to seek more information on a reported raid on its offices by the corruption watchdog last month. Independent councillor Kellie Darley put forward a motion at Monday night's council meeting proposing that the council acknowledge "significant community concern" over the "entry" to the offices by Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC) officers. It follows media reports that ICAC officers conducted the raid and seized the mobile phones of senior staff just hours before a council meeting. Councillor Darley told the meeting she wanted to publicly acknowledge concerns that have been raised by community members, and to address an information "void". "Unfortunately when people don't have information and they speculate, they come up with things that are not true," Cllr Darley said. "The reason I wanted to put this on the agenda tonight is to acknowledge that concern but also address the misinformation. The motion was ultimately defeated, but Labor Councillor Patricia Prociv successfully moved an amendment that council "affirms its zero-tolerance approach to fraudulent or corrupt behaviour". Her amendment also noted that council "would continue delivering the highest level of service". The amendment passed unanimously. Following the meeting, Councillor Darley said she was disappointed her motion was unsuccessful, and vowed to continue raising questions about the matter at future meetings. "They're sweeping it under the carpet and putting their head in the sand," she said. The ICAC has declined to comment on the reports.
The Australian
2 hours ago
- The Australian
PM's Palestine blunder plays to domestic cheer squad
These actions are not likely to have any particular consequence in the Middle East. They're not really concerned with the politics of Gaza City and Ramallah but with Marrickville and Liverpool, Northcote and Broadmeadows. This is about domestic politics, not the Middle East. As Frank Knopfelmacher long ago quipped: Australia foreign policy is often domestic politics by other means. Consider the simple logic. You recognise a state when a state exists. This move would be the equivalent of recognising a Tibetan state. After all, Beijing invaded Tibet and has perpetrated undeniable human rights abuses. The Tibetan government-in-exile claims to be the true representative of the Tibetan people. Are the Tibetan people less worthy of a state than Palestinians? But China is a big power, Israel a small power. Our 'conscience' typically goes quiet with big powers. Australia recognises states rather than governments. If we decline to have diplomatic relations with the Taliban government, we still recognise Afghanistan. International convention, to which Australia subscribes, is that a state must have recognised borders, a clear government in control of its territory and various other attributes, none of which Palestine enjoys. What has happened here is that Israel's military campaign in Gaza, especially in recent months, and the prospect of an intensified campaign in Gaza city are very unpopular. (Incidentally, I strongly support Israel's right to defend itself against Hamas but think in recent months the moral, human and political cost has outweighed any benefit. Therefore it should change the campaign. That view doesn't require early recognition of Palestine.) One way left-of-centre governments are coping with the domestic politics this situation throws up is the empty, symbolic and meaningless gesture of recognition, though the politics of this recognition could be destructive. Russia recognised a Palestinian state decades ago, yet this didn't hasten an actual Palestinian state. As Liberal senator Dave Sharma, a former Australian ambassador to Israel, told Radio National, recognition has 'strengthened Hamas's international position, it's made Hamas less likely to reach a ceasefire. It's made Hamas able to portray itself as making political progress because of its military actions, and that is actually pushing back the resolution of this conflict.' Hamas also credibly claims these moves by Western governments to afford recognition as a huge victory for its violence. Sharma makes the broader point that conflating criticism of Israel's latest military policy with formal recognition of Palestine is illogical and counter-productive. When a new state is established, diplomatic recognition helps legitimatise and normalise it. Thus when what is now the Republic of Ireland broke away from Britain and became the Irish Free State in 1922, international recognition helped underwrite the deal. Similarly when South Sudan became independent. When the former Yugoslavia broke up, the individual nations like Serbia and Croatia were recognised one by one. When Ukraine left the Russian Federation, Moscow and Kyiv negotiated borders and the deal was ratified, among others, by Britain and the US, though Russia under Vladimir Putin later invaded. This move by the Albanese government is more akin to recognising a government-in-exile; the White Russians in the 1920s, for example. Most of the opposition figures who spoke on this were nearly as confused as the government, saying predominantly that the conditions Anthony Albanese mentioned should be satisfied before recognition. The opposition shows its lack of sophistication here. All the conditions Albanese outlined could be theoretically satisfied and it still would be illogical, counter-productive and meaningless to recognise a state that can come into existence only at the end of a complicated negotiation. As has often been stated, the Palestinians have been seriously offered a state on four separate occasions. When Israel and Palestine were first partitioned the Palestinians and the surrounding Arab states refused, rejected the partition and launched a war of annihilation against Israel. Then under the Oslo Accords there were two separate offers to the Palestinians. We needn't rely on Israeli testimony. These are all described at length in the memoirs of Clinton administration officials. Then Israeli prime minister Ehud Olmert made a further offer in 2008. Again, no need to rely on Israeli sources. This was described in Condoleezza Rice's memoirs. In each case the offer was essentially the same: a Palestinian state on almost all the West Bank, about 94 per cent of it, with only the Jewish settlements adjacent to Jerusalem kept by Israel but with compensating land swaps from Israel proper; plus all of Gaza; plus a Palestinian capital in east Jerusalem. In return the Palestinians had to accept that this was the end of all claims against Israel and that they give up the idea that millions of Palestinians living overseas could come back to live in Israel, and of course they had to put an end to terrorism and anti-Semitic incitement in their education systems. But the whole ideology of Palestinianism, as some call it, is that they have been removed from the whole land of Israel, which belongs to them, and that there's no legitimacy to a Jewish state in the Middle East. Therefore they could never finally agree to any possible deal. The extremists among them responded with anti-Israeli terrorism. Not only that, it was clear that any Palestinian leader who made peace on those terms would be assassinated, just as Egypt's president, Anwar Sadat, was assassinated by extremists who objected to his peace with Israel. For much of the period since the Olmert offer the Palestinian leadership has refused to negotiate so-called final status issues with Israel at all. The 'right of return' is the most ridiculous Palestinian demand. Under this, every descendant or blood relative of any family that historically once lived in the territory of Israel would have a right to return and live permanently in Israel. Years ago I interviewed senior Palestinian intellectual Sari Nusseibeh, who told me he thought the right of return was simply completely unrealistic. By now it's probably seven million people who would qualify under the right of return to live in Israel. No Palestinian leader will give this up. No Israeli will ever accept it. Its only real purpose is to offer an excuse for Palestinian representatives to reject any realistic offer of a state. All this rejectionism has moved Israeli politics to the right. Indeed, while ever Palestinian leaders hold these positions a two-state solution is indeed impossible. Yet all of Albanese's blather doesn't even mention any of the three final status issues – accepting the 1967 borders with land swaps, the status of Jerusalem and forgoing the right of return. It is of course inconceivable that even the conditions Albanese claims now accompany recognition will be met. Reform of the Palestinian Authority? Now there's a novel idea. Similarly, what happens if there is an election and, as likely, Hamas wins? Support for an eventual two-state solution has been bipartisan in Australia but not support for early recognition of a Palestinian state. No Australian government can solve the Israel-Palestine dispute. Australian governments can cynically manipulate these issues for domestic political purposes. That's what's happening here. Greg Sheridan Foreign Editor Greg Sheridan is The Australian's foreign editor. His most recent book, Christians, the urgent case for Jesus in our world, became a best seller weeks after publication. It makes the case for the historical reliability of the New Testament and explores the lives of early Christians and contemporary Christians. He is one of the nation's most influential national security commentators, who is active across television and radio, and also writes extensively on culture and religion. He has written eight books, mostly on Asia and international relations. A previous book, God is Good for You, was also a best seller. When We Were Young and Foolish was an entertaining memoir of culture, politics and journalism. As foreign editor, he specialises in Asia and America. He has interviewed Presidents and Prime Ministers around the world.
