There are numerous organisations who profess to speak in the name of homeless and marginalised people. Gullible or culpable politicians and corporate directors seem willing to swallow the fallacy that they speak on our behalf,but who elected them,or pemitted them to speak on their behalf? Not me…and its a straight all up bet not you either. homeless 1Charities fall into two categories for state legal purposes. Religious organisations are exempt from state government controls. Non religious organisations are not.Why? Is there some ideal or whatever which ensures that religious organisations act with absolute integrity and honesty. Did they tell the aboriginal communities of Sydney harbour two hundred years ago that the blankets they were giving them were contaminated with smallpox? Probably not. Morals? Just last week another long term member of a prominent social services providing religious organisation was jailed for 12 years for paedophilia. Financial propriety? We don’t know, they are exempt from scrutiny!!! And as far as providing government services is concerned, one of the consistent failings of contractor and government alike is the predisposition of both to implement care and maintenance progrms,as compared with providing solution based programs with clearly defined success milestones, ending with a sunset clause and resolution where the problem has ceased to exist. But what government minister or charity business administrator actually wants to be the reason that their department no longer has a reason to exist?

 Lets start with a level playing field for religious and non religion based charities alike. Lets either have all or none exempted from the current unfair model where some have Office of Gaming and Liqour compliance responsibilities and some do not.

 The next step would be to apply the same principles as infrastructure projects to social marginalisation issues. The current Sydney Metro project has a defined program to resolve a particular transport issue by providing specific infrastructure, which should end the initial transport problem. In the same way, Sydney has a chrnonic lack of affordable housing. Sydney also actually has close to sufficient residential “human places” to cater to its population. So the state could,for example, simply pass a bylaw requiring all operators of income generating residential property to provide x-percent of their accommodation units(or the revenue equivalent) for social housing. This pool could then be passed to the Housing dept for example,for redistribution, and federal government could provide a tax offset to the owner. No more ghetto housing projects,and a quantum increase immediately in social housing units.

see also mission australia with the only statement they have made since becoming the architects of the Howardly “work for the dole” and related slave labour schemes: