To celebrate national homelessness week, NSW Premier Gladys Berejiklian has decided here government would do its bit by cleaning up Sydney’s Martin Place Tent City, evicting the homeless and forcing them back onto the streets. The Premier offered no alternative which allowed ”sleeping space” for the inner cities down and out. What does Gladys think they should do? Move into her leafy suburb of Northbridge.

Dear Paul,

I certainly don't have the answers for you.
However, there must be better solutions to
the problem. Extra funding for people like
Father Chris Riley who began his work for
youth in Sydney. He, as you know founded and
developed "Youth Off the Streets," (YOTS).
In 1991 he went to work in Kings Cross to
begin working full-time on the streets
with chronically homeless young people.YOTS
grew out of this and has adopted innovative
approaches to the abused and traumatised girls
and boys with whom it deals through street-
based programs and drug and alcohol rehabilitation.

Perhaps he would be a good person that politicians
could get advice from as to how to deal with the
problems involved in homelessness. Because the
steps you're talking about sound very draconian
and severe.

I think some are just trouble makers, based on this, short of being a cockroach or vermin infested dwelling why don't they take it.

http://au.news.yahoo.com/nsw/a/36599368/homeless-people-in-sydney-tent-city-turn-down-offers-of-homes/#page1

Homeless people living in Sydney's 'tent city' have reportedly turned down offers of permanent housing.

As the NSW state government and Sydney City Council continue their war of words over who is to blame, those living amongst the homeless pop-up are refusing offers of warm homes.

One couple was reportedly offered permanent housing in a unit on Pittwater Rd for the heavily discounted rate of $120 per week, far less than the $530 it usually goes for.

The deal, which included a bed, television and other furniture was knocked back on July 17.

Further homeless squatters also snubbed homes in Kingsford and Stanmore, opting to stay in their makeshift community that is causing all sorts of headaches for police and politicians alike.

Paul1405 - Quote "evicting the homeless and forcing them back onto the streets." Technically they are on the streets now.

Quote "offered no alternative which allowed ”sleeping space” for the inner cities down and out."
Devils advocate, opening up spaces in the city could potentially open the flood gates to thousands wanting more for less or nothing.

I do believe something has to be done as renting is way to expensive in most areas where you can also get employment and public transport.

The percentage of salary going to rent is very high in most cities of Australia.

I don't have the answers but agree something needs to be done and it is the Governments fault.

Hi Foxy, I am glad you mention Fr Chris Riley's 'Youth Off the Streets' org. Doing a fantastic job.
At the moment we have 50 to 60 people a night sleeping in and around Central Railway Station. Why anyone would "choose" to sleep in an alcove or doorway at Central? Now that is cold at night when its wet and windy, at least its relatively safe. Then we have those living in the "bush" in Belmore Park opposite. A feed and a hot cuppa in the morning in Price Alfred Park. What I hate most of all is when a new young person arrives, you can tell, they are clean and have a new sleeping bag, They will tell you its only temporary, until I find my feet. Some make it out, some don't. The society we live in will always have people falling through the cracks.

Hi Phil, "Homeless people living in Sydney's 'tent city' have reportedly turned down offers of permanent housing." Yes, for many it has become their way of life. Meet Dave and Mary, Dave is incoherent, incapable of any rational thought what so ever. Put Dave into accommodation and he will be back on the streets before you know it, they will either throw him out, or he'll leave voluntarily. Mary is happy in her own little world, which consists of a supermarket trolley and several large candy bags. Just don't try and sleep in her "house"! You could offer them the Taj Mahal and they would knock it back.

Whats the fortnightly newstart allowance $600 ?
I'm betting concession bus or train fare to either Melb or Syd costs about $60.
Im also betting they could find accomodation in many rural places at at price within their means.
So with that in mind, I question whether they are actually homeless or economic migrants.

Were living in an age where you blame everybody else for your problems.
Why would they leave and pay rent, when they live in the heart of the city for free paying the victim card for all its worth?
How much does one earn a day from begging and handouts?
Probably more than they earn on Centrelink.

This is the same as boat people.
If you give in and give them a home more will come and take their place, and dont forget their life choices put them where they are.
Why should taxpayers foot the bill for accommodation when they are already paying $600 a f/n and the homeless are too stubborn or stupid to take responsibility for their lives.
If they can't find a way on that, then more cash won't help them.
If they dont want to move on they can get food and accommodation in the watchouse while waiting to explain to the magistrate why they didn't want to move on after being offered housing.

Philip S.
I do have the answers.
Stop giving welfare as 'money' obtained from other workers.
Give welfare in the form of a job instead, helping the government do things to save money.
Double dole for full time work.
Create a culture of employment within the ranks of the unemployed, to stop the slide into welfare dependency, whilst keeping the country productive.

This will fix indigenous problems, economic problems, people throwing their lives away problems... and will end up saving far more than it costs.
It's really bloody simple actually.

We have the problems we do becase leaders are incompetent and can't find solutions to simple problems, plus the country is too damn corrupt, problems become corporate industries and the money thrown at these problems become part of the self serving framework that corporations and organisations rely on..

another problem largely created by socialist destruction of familes.

I agree with PhilipS: a bunch of ratbags and posers the lot of them. There are homeless people in need of help, but they aren't among this lot of scum. The fire brigade should be brought in to hose them out.

I would be very surprised indeed, if most of these people camping in Martin Place are homeless? More especially this seventy year old, NZ interloper, with his twenty years old 'expectant' girlfriend, and his eleven children? God we've become so damn weak, it makes me feel so ashamed, when we should be doing a lot more for the genuine homeless not these pretenders, many of whom deserve to be arrested, fined, and made to seek work otherwise totally remove ALL their benefits.

Newstart allowance per fortnight:
single, no children $535.60 = $267.80 pw = $38.25 pd.
single, aged 60 or over, after 9 continuous months on payment $579.30 = 289.65 pw = $41.37 pd.

Now, rent a house at the cheap price of $120 pw. That leaves you $147.40 pw = $21.05 pd or $169.65 pw = 24.23 pd. But out of that you'll need to set aside some money to pay the electricity and gas bill. I live on my own, economist and pay about $4.50 pd electricity. So, let's allow $3 pd for that; the daily amount now available for all other expenses is $17.05 or $21.23. (By the way, is the house furnished, or do you need to buy some stuff? And you'll definitely need to buy household basics regularly: toilet paper, detergent etc.)

So here's you choice. Live on the street and have $38-41 pd for food and other expenses - and you can get charity food hand-outs and pick up a bit extra from begging, or take the cheap rent and have just $17-21 pd left over (and you've got to do the washing up, clean the house etc.) On the streets, you also have company of others in the same boat, have the entertainment of the passing throng, street buskers; in the rental you're alone, unless you go out (and spend money on public transport etc.)

It looks like homelessness may be a rational economic decision when you're on the dole.

Has anyone posting here ever tried living on those amounts, with no financial backing (savings) or assets (a house, car)? That is, walk out of your current house, with just a bag of clothes and a toothbrush, and actually tried living on $38/41 per day? Or even in you current house, live on less than $20 pd for all other expenses above $3 pd for electricity? Will you be able to afford a mobile phone od computer to follow OLO?

Armchair Critic: "Give welfare in the form of a job instead, helping the government do things to save money. Double dole for full time work. Create a culture of employment within the ranks of the unemployed, to stop the slide into welfare dependency, whilst keeping the country productive."

This is a nice idea. It has been tried, and in general it doesn't work. The problems are:
1. Some people are physically or mentally incapable of working, through no fault of their own, but don't qualify for the disability pension which is way better than newstart: $808.30 pf.
2. 'Helping the government do things to save money' - exactly what sort of things? Lots of past programs were clearly trivial make-work, dreamt up for the program, leading to cynicism and lack of commitment by participants. If the work was actually necessary and productive, there are two issues - why isn't private enterprise doing this, and why aren't the participants being paid proper wages, not just the dole (or even double)?

There was a work-for-dole tree-planting program in my area some years ago. The participants, locals, were sceptical about the location and plant selection, and they were right; there was no long-term maintenance and all the trees died. People want to feel that they are doing something useful, that they can point to proudly in the future, 'I helped with that', not to feel from the start that it's all just a waste of time.

Hi Cossomby,
It's been a while since I mentioned this idea, but I really think its the only way forward.
You say its been tried before and doest work, well 2 things, one we haven't tried hard enough to make it work and two, it has to work, or the country will end up ruined economically anyway.

Regards physically and mentally incapable: good point.
Make the program completely optional, to resolve the issue of giving them a choice instead of forcing them to do something.
Issue solved, I can't create a culture of employment within the ranks of the unemployed if I force them, I have to let them choose it for themselves (but make them an offer so good they can't refuse)

Jobs: tree planting isn't gonna cut it.
You're going to need to create real jobs, hundreds of thousands of them and make them accessible, and thats why we need a big national project, and I'd suggest it be based around infrastructure.
Plenty of jobs and plenty of training.

I'll bring in 'training credits' as a sister to 'working credits'

I'd start with works regarding land clearing for furture infrastructure and factories to start building portable housing units, that can be used in an employment sense, but also rented out or onsold to individuals.
So I'd like to create a real energy efficient portable dwelling.
These workers might end up working on a production line for larger removeable homes (fixing our housing problem) at a later date to be transported easily using the infrastructure being built.

Well build the Aussie version Of the Chinese One Road project, with a super port in Cairns and connecting all capital cities with a new HSR and road network, incorporating power, water, internet as well as push ahead with sun farms and Alan B's thorium ideas.

If we can't lower wages in this country to be competitive, we need to lower the costs of energy and transport, and we need a system that better utilises the unemployed, who do want to work.

Living on $600 a fortnight, yes it can be done, and I've done it.
Been times in my life when I had plenty and other times where I had little.
You can probably do it on $500 a f/n but I can't emphasise enough the importance of rent costs, and ability to share with others.

Say you have 3 mates and you rent a near new 4br home at $500 a week, rent is $125 each, on the other end of the scale it might be 2 people sharing a 2 beddy for $380 week, costing $190 each, so this will have a larger effect on money remaining.
But lets say, you only got $500 f/n and you paid $380 a f/n rent.
Bare bones stuff. $60 week left over.
You can eat cheap if you're smart, shop the specials and only buy necessities.
A kilo in cheap mince is $7 kilo chicken breast about $8, 1.7 kg sausages about $8, Rich beefy mince, butter chicken etc you'll get 3 or 4 meals for an $8 dish, weetbix, cheap milk and bread, $29 mobile phone with cheap internet from say kogan, maybe a cheap 7inch tablet... you could make do and survive until you found work.

And you would, if you had to, but why bother when you could stay in the city for free play the victim and scab $100 a day off rich people who want to make themselves feel better by giving to people beneath them?

Dear Armchair Critic,

Brilliant ideas. If only we had the leadership
to implement them.

A greater effort should be made to ensure those that can work, do work. There are certainly a significant number of people wroughting the social welfare system, and that should be stopped wherever possible. On the question of homeless people, there are many whose lives are in such a crises state that they are unemployable. Some are totally gone mentally, and there is no way back for them. Others have issues where they are in a situation they need to get out of, which once addressed would see them return to some semblance of normality, and then they could become useful members of society.

The danger is politicians often take the one size fits all approach, and given their political philosophy try to use the big stick to achieve a desired outcome. That approach does little more than create havoc and hardship for the many.

Just on the job creation programs, the couple I have experienced, not being directly involved, seemed to be a farce. One was young people painting a graffitied toilet block. The kids spent most of their time on their mobile phones, and the person in charge didn't want them to go too fast as she had no more work for them, and she knew nothing about painting anyway. The more useful was the bloke sent to the Salvo Shop, spent his time out the back sorting old cloths and having a chat, and a coffee, with the volunteer ladies.

Dear Paul,

I've just come across the following link that's
worth a read. It shows what is currently working
regarding homelessness:

http://www.smh.com.au/comment/how-to-fix-homelessness-give-the-homeless-a-home-20150730-ginpeo.html

cont'd ...

Dear Paul,

According to an article in The Age -

"Research shows that there are over 55,000 properties
that have been lying idle for extended periods. Why not
tax those vacant properties in order to create a home
for someone who really needs it? Like women fleeing
violent homes who may have missed out on housing support
because there wasn't enough supply to meet the demand."

According to The Age, "Such a scheme is already under way
in Britain, where councils have the authority to charge a
50% premium for any property that has been unoccupied
for 2 years or more (provided the house does not belong to
someone in hospital or prison, or compulsory acquired and
set to be demolished)."

The Age tells us that "If adopted here, a vacancy tax would
encourage property owners to either release housing to the
market, or make a financial contribution. The revenue generated
through the levy - about $79 million a year, according to
modelling by Launch Housing - could be used to fund affordable
homes for thousands of women and their children trying to escape
violence and poverty."

The article has other good suggestions such as - better
co-ordination of services for the homeless situation and
of course covers prevention as well. There's more in the
following link:

http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/homelessness-what-are-the-solutions-to-the-crisis-on-our-streets-20160723-ggc8mu.html

cont'd ...

Dear Paul, Once again, my apologies for the typo.
I was in too much of a hurry. Here's The Age link
again:

http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/homelessness-what-are-the-solutions-to-the-crisis-on-our-streets-20160723-gqc8mu.html

Hi Foxy,
My idea is interesting in that I really do believe it could work, and that I believe we need a real good solution to the welfare issue for all countries..

Hey Paul
- Helping people who want to work to find work.
My idea for socialist base level employment is to create a job program that would effectively remove the 'I can't get a job' excuse' as well as make use of what I see as a huge loss of human resource, that could be taken advantage of.

Our capitalist society requires a 5% level of unemployment to prevent wage growth and to provide a pool of workers for which capitalism can choose from.

So you have all these people sitting around who want to work, who aren't currently working, but looking for work.
It's a waste.

So think of this instead: 'the job you have when you don't have a job'.

So next as the idea progresses...
We need a project that includes meaningful jobs and makes job shifts available via app in a way that a person can just log on, find a shift they're skilled to do, get training via app for that job prior to going, ( short videos etc outlining the tasks, risks, other info)
- That's why it has to be a big national project.

Then you incorporate the training properly so that your 'training credits' earned in addition to double dole payment; pay for new 'skills', and your 'skills' will determine what jobs shifts are available to you in the 'socialist base level jobs system' or 'job you have when you dont have a job' system -whatever you want to call it.

The cost of infrastructure doubles every 10 years...
We'd be best to figure this thing out and make it work.

It's seems almost impossible to envisage at first, but the more you think about it and refine it, more hidden benefits and cost savings appear.

Think about what might happen if you gave indigenous real jobs and opportunities to help build this, and their own communities.

Why should homeless be beachside at Southport Beach, Surfers Paradise, or in in Sydney's cbd when there are plenty of houses available in country areas?

Group house, do some veggie gardening too and in the fresh air of the country. Where transport is not required, it is a short walk.

For most, it is not as though they will have the skills for jobs anywhere in the near future or at all. Go West and live well and study online if they will. Probably easier for authorities to monitor their access to drugs too.

Cheap real estate,
http://www.realestate.com.au/buy/property-house-between-0-50000-in-qld/list-1

That oprion is not being promoted. Why not?

Dear Armchair Critic,

The Age link that I cited earlier tells us that
the homeless crisis will never be resolved without
political will and investment - both of which have
been lacking for years. I agree with you. It has to
be a national project and leadership is needed.

Also, instead of simply providing more services
better co-ordination of services we're told is the key.
The government's own data shows sharp spikes in
areas such as Brimbank, Melton, Ballarat and Barwon
throughout winter - and not just the Melbourne CBD.

More services need to be provided into towns or
suburbs. When you consider that the average rent here
in Melbourne is now around $390 a week - it's not
hard to see why more people are being forced into
towns or suburbs where there are fewer services and
jobs available. Clearly a re-think of the situation is
needed.

One solution that was suggested in the previous link
was "inclusionary zoning," which requires developers to
ensure that a proportion of new dwellings - say 5 to 10%
are affordable or low cost.

The link tells us that - New York does it. Vancouver does
it. Even South Australia does it.

Yet in Victoria where everything from VicTrack land,
vacant schools and former military sites are ripe for
development the Andrews Government is dragging its heels
amid fears of a backlash from the property industry.
With more people being squeezed out of the market, some
leadership is needed.

The Age article tells us that in Metropolitan Melbourne
the median house price if now $725,000 while the average
rent has increased to $390 per week. Low cost motels and
caravan parks have succumbed to gentrification and rooming
houses such as St. Kilda's Gatwick Hotel are set to close
their doors.

Council for Homeless Persons Chief Executive Jenny Smith
says that if "inclusionary zoning" had been in place last year,
800 more properties would have been available for people
currently on the public housing waiting list.
"Instead we've waited until we're quite literally tripping
over people in the streets."

http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/homelessness-what-are-the-solutions-to-the-crisis-on-our-streets-20160723-gqc8mu.html

But the vacant homes are already available in country towns. The Shire councils have been beating the bush for years trying to get people to move. Many offer incentives.

It is not the determined homeless who get off their rears and relocate to Tas or to mainland country towns. It is people like self-funded retirees who have always worked to care for their families and themselves and are doing the same in retirement - by their own sacrifice, yet again.

So, it is back to tors and the question, how to nudge the homeless from the Sydney cbd and the dunes of Surfers' Southport beach, where they defecate and spread rubbish everywhere, and get them to board a bus and go to the country, where there are good homes to group-share the daily tasks and plenty of room to grow veggies (as if they might!).

So, what is preventing the homeless from doing just that?

The "mayor" of this tent city turns out to be a nasty piece of work from New Zealand with assault police convictions. Another agitator spruiks with a foreign accent. One wonders how much of this homelessness is due to our stupidly high immigration rate. Non-working people, who are no use whatever to the country.

I wonder what would happen if vagrancy was
classified as a crime. If police had the power
to arrest people who were sleeping out on the
streets and could put them onto buses and drive
them to country towns where they would be forced
to work for farmers who now rely on backpackers
for their labour - because no one else wants to
do the work. Would this solve any problems - both
for farmers and the homeless?

Just a thought.

Foxy,

No-one, least of all me, wants to compel anyone. But you already know that.

Most would realise too that there are some people who experience difficulty handling their own affairs. Some may have had wretched luck.

What I am suggesting is that there are opportunities for lifestyles that are superior to what many know and if it is their inability to get moving, get sorted or whatever they need helpful nudges.

Helpful nudges can include some respite, temporary accommodation, in group houses in the country in lieu of the city where they fall back into the same problems.

That can also provide some employment in country towns and business which are welcome.

Hey Foxy,
Re: Inclusionary Zoning.
I don't know much about it, but if the pro's outweight the cons and it make the community more liveable for the people in it then I'm all for it.
But I see these kinds of 'normal ideas' as band-aid ideas no offence when the real problem is more at the core.
Try this: draw a triangle on a piece of paper and in one corner (bottom left) write 'Capitalist and Socialist Education" and under it write 'Public and Private Schools' then on another corner of the triangle write 'Capitalist and Socialist Healthcare' and under it write 'Public and Private Hospitals'

Now look at it and tell me whats missing in our society. ?
We've got something better than America does in socialst base level healthcare but what's missing?
Think about it.
How do we pay for these benefits of socialist base-level education and healthcare if we don't have socialist base-level jobs?

And we COULD do it now, with the help of smart phones and apps.
Using the wasted resource of people 'looking for work but not finding work' from the 5% of workers capitalism need to prevent wage growth, and you create a system where the socialst base-level jobs help build the infrastructure that creates more job and business oportunities in the private sector. (ie non socialist base-level jobs)

You have to fix the problems at the core first, then everything else will fall into place.

Leoj, How to get people off the easy beach lifestyle?
Don't force them, make them an offer so good they can't refuse.

Think about if I created this 'job you have when you don't have a job system, think of those 2 bums of the beach.... what if one of them CHOOSES, NOT FORCED to login and find and do a work shift in my job system.. The other guys going to feel like a loser when he has less for not going, and suddenly I've won the game, 'I've created a culture of employment within the ranks of the unemployed'

AC,
I can recall that people went fruit picking during their holidays, to earn extra money cash in hand or, in the city, went to the markets and pushed a barrow for 4 hours before going to their normal job. This was all cash in hand and not declared income and used to buy the house or some other major item. The thing was that people are willing to work the hard or difficult jobs if the incentive is there.

Keating PM ruined this by introduction of the Tax File Number needed to get a job and policing those employers that were willing to pay cash in hand. This took all the incentive out of going away fruit picking so people lost interest. Many people paid for their building block or set up business this way with the extra cash and the money ended up in the economy anyway, it just took a little longer to get there.

So history has shown that Aussies will do the work if the incentive is there

Foxy,

Vagrancy used to be a crime, and it still might be for all I know. I cannot see the people posing as politicians going down that track, though.

Armchair Critic,

The only suggestion I have is to use every available 'nudge' to get people to be responsible and to take some pride in themselves. It might work with a few.

However, by far the biggest problem I observe and read about is drugs, including alcohol.

It is not unusual to see in the council park a mess of stinking, but apparently recently supplied, sleeping bag, doona and whatever with the drug/alcohol affected bodies in it and often arguing. And the tents in the undergrowth on building sites where protective fences have been destroyed.

They will dirty and destroy any house given to them. They learn to be highly manipulative. My kind parents learned that lesson a number of times loaning farm worker and township cottages to people they though were 'needy and deserving, in need of a break'. Costly experience and no thanks, just abuse and more filth when they were finally caused to leave.

They will tell you it is their right to live that way and of course, 'no-one knows what they are like'.

It so happens that after years of volunteering I agree with them. It IS their choice. But it should not be the fate of their children, many of whom are born drug damaged. The circle needs to be broken and some children might find another way.

There is very little hope of reducing the problem where drug manufacture and dealing is a booming business, turning over $Millions a month.

Lots of good ideas coming forward here.
I'm running out of further suggestions -
all I can do is repeat what's been suggested
previously.

I'm not sure what will work but one thing's for
sure - some leadership is needed.

Research shows that
there are over 55,000 properties that have been
lying idle for extended periods. I still don't see
why not tax those vacant properties in order to
create a home for someone who really needs it -
like women and children fleeing violent homes who may
have missed out on housing support because there
wasn't enough supply to meet the demand.

As stated earlier -

Such a scheme is already under way in Britain, where
councils have the authority to charge a 50% premium
for any property that has been unoccupied for 2 years
or more. If adopted here, a vacancy tax would encourage
property owners to either release housing to the market
or make a financial contribution. The revenue generated
through the levy would be about $79
million a year, according to modelling by Launch Housing - it
could then be used to fund affordable homes for thousands
of women and their children trying to escape violence and
poverty.

Dear Armchair Critic - I think your suggestions are great.
And what you and leoj are saying makes a great deal of
sense.

Dear ttbn,

I'm also not sure about vagrancy being a crime.
That was my husband's suggestion. He seemed
to think that the police should have more
control over the situation. But I agree -
I'm not sure if forcing people to do what
they don't want is going to work. As others
have said - incentives are needed for change
to occur.

There is nothing new about moving less fortunate people to places where there is housing. There's a small SA town near the Victorian border called Wolsely, which used to be where rail passengers changed trains before the rail gauge was standardised. When housing was no longer needed for railway workers, the homeless and hopeless were sent their to live. Similarly, when my own home town fell on hard times, many Housing Trust homes were made available to people from all over the state.

Not all people without somewhere to live have brought their situation on themselves, but there are opportunities for geographic change, which surely must be better than remaining homeless.

"Not all people without somewhere to live have brought their situation on themselves, but there are opportunities for geographic change, which surely must be better than remaining homeless"

Agreed

There's also the ones who have serious alcohol and
drug problems that have to be addressed before
a change can be made for their homelessness.

The following link explains:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-02-01/ezard-homelessness-and-alcohol/7130482

Well Foxy, as you often say, your mind is made up and it will not be changed. But many people realise they can exercise judgement independent of the talking points of political parties where they choose to be autonomous.

Everybody is aware of the 'Always say no' approach of Shorten and ors, the uncooperative *bleep*-stirring that in modern times is the first choice of political parties who want to dislodge the sitting incumbents.

My posts on the previous page 6 dealt with illicit drug use, including alcohol. There is nothing to be lost and everything to be gained from nudging the affected to move to already available, cheap country housing.

It changes their environment and gives them a fresh start. It would provide jobs in country towns that sorely need that. The homeless are immediately housed and there are effective models of group-supportive housing available. They are far more easily observed and help is more easily targeted, more specific.

After all, that is what Greens and other greedy Chardonnay leftists are pushing for the old. That the old be forced out of the homes in which they have lived for their lifetime and have raised their families, to be taken advantage of by entrepreneurs who have developed rabbit warren high rises in formerly cheap (now high priced thanks to the entrepreneurs) areas. It is already happening and has been for some years, with wedge politics from both sides of the Parliament to increase the psychological pain.

Excepting where the relocations of the claimed homeless are concerned, it is all positive. They would be going to homes on lots of land and can expect to get full government support. They get it for free. They lose nothing and it is all gain. Think health and what is more important than that?

Of course they do lose their dealers, their squats and the shops and residents they thieve from. Labor and Greens lose a negative political placard, but could stand to gain through actually achieving something practical for once and by being positive, which is also good modelling if they choose it.

As to the drug problem.... it's a matter of public resolve...no resolve no solution.
Personally I'd produce a variety of drugs for free daily distribution out of some remote rural area and I'd provide a free one way ticket to that destination.
Entitlement would be on contribution of 4 hours/day doing whatever tasks were deemed essential.

As to those who are economic migrants....the rural locations await you and any social payments are to be collected from those areas from empathetic public servants eager to advise them of all benefits as may apply to them.

As to the social re-balancing I'd have a limit on public service, employment say eight years maximum, that way everyone can experience an indolent lifestyle where reality dare not enter, and everyone can gain work experience of some sort.

Like I said, 'public resolve'....without it you have what you have

leoj,

No, my mind is not made up and it certainly
is not set in concrete, on the contrary.
That is why I keep referencing experts on
the issues involved to give as broad a
range of perspectives as possible - showing
from their experience what works and what
does not. It in no way was directed at anything
you may have posted because I actually rarely
read most of what you write and post for
obvious reasons. I usually scroll past your
posts although I do admit that on the rare
occasion you do surprise me at times with some
lucidity. Most of the time though it's the same
old predictable stuff. No offence intended.

Have a nice day.

ilmessaggio,

Yes, without 'nudges' in the right direction, nothing happens.

Where the country houses are concerned, there has to be some reasonableness and practical thinking too.

You can't have welfare recipients or welfare bureaucrats knocking back as 'unsuitable' the homes that self-funded families have lived in and enjoyed.

All have to be seen to be contributing too.

There is no reason why moveable housing shouldn't be used and relocated where necessary. Most retirees have to pay for and maintain their own and very modest many of them are too, small caravans and motor vans.

Room to engage some well experienced grey nomads to advise and work part time? Why not?

Shifting the homeless has been done in Australia before. During the Sydney Olympics in 2000, the State government "bused" many of Sydney's homeless to Newcastle for a fortnight.

In the US, some east coast states pay the air fare of their homeless to migrate to sunny Hawaii. Around Honolulu tents can be seen all over the place.

Confronted with the dangers of a possible heavy handed forced eviction by NSW police, the residents of Sydney's Martin Place tent city peacefully vacated the site on Friday. Many have nowhere to go despite the spin of Social Housing Minister Pru Goward that all residents had been offered alternative accommodation. What Goward failed to say was this offer was mostly temporary, lasting only a few days in some cases.

Its all about shifting the problem, and not permanent solutions.

The Greens and Labor wouldn't want to lose their rent-a-crowd serial protesters for headlines, would they, Paul1405?

Many of the seniors who are being ruthlessly forced out of their homes so that favoured entrepreneurs can make $$ off their backs - the homes and environments they are familiar with and where they raised their families and likely their own parents in their old age as well - have purchased mobile homes, even vans, and cheap housing on fringes and in country areas, Tasmania as well.

There is NO shortage of land in Australia. There are broad hectares of cheap land with services and often within short walking distance of the centre of town.

For the claimed 'homeless' who are despoiling Sydney's cbd and are depositing their rubbish and turds over the dunes on Southport dunes and parklands (with refuse bins and toilets near), there are ready made solutions NOW, in country towns and permanent, not temporary.

It is obviously one thing for the bothering leftists, the chardonnay International Socialist elite ensconced in public sinecures in academia, public service jobs and as seat-polishing Senators, to be sledging old people, pensioners, empty nesters (with some extra room for grandkids to prop for a while), to sell out and move into smaller housing, cheap banged-up granny units with shared facilities and no privacy, BUT it is quite another for claimed
'homeless' to be requested to move where the housing is available, in country areas.

The Greens and Shorten's 'Progressives' (Regressives) despise the elderly and plot to take away everything they have scrimped and saved for lifetimes to pay for. Even when they are dead the plundering leftists seek to take their estates.

What is Australia coming to that we allow greedy, self-serving, self-entitled urban hipsters and Chinese who defraud own country's rules against exporting large sums of money, to force seniors out of their homes and into the hands of wealthy entrepreneurs, many again from China (and with sorry histories where the trusting public are concerned, overseas and here too)?

Hey leoj,
I'm a big supporter of removeable housing.
I think the quality of these types of homes today is excellent and I think we could address our housing problem with big factories where these homes would come custom ordered and directly off production lines delivered and connected in 48hrs.
The government alone would save billions, and consumers would have access to less expensive options in aquiring a first home.
This idea is greatly improved by the need for better road and rail, which is why I advocate for my national infrastructure project, and socialist base-level employment scheme.

It's not in anyway because I support socialism, (my idea actually strengthens capitalism, seeks to find the right balance) but instead support people out of work having greater opportunies to get on their feet, and a more efficient way of managing our nation.

I can take a top down look at the issues, and like dominoe's, fixing one problem right at the top level, (this one issue) will allow us to simultaneosly fix all the other problems as well.

All you need is a little bit of smart thinking, something our leaders lack.
And it's not hard, if you just look at the problems properly, the answers present themselves.