Australia's Simplicity Institute: Housing The Poor

[Tony Gosling]

How can a person be said to have a country where 
they have no right to a square inch of soil;
.. where they have nothing but their hands, & 
urged by starvation, must bid against their 
fellows for the privilege of using them?

A More Workable Strategy for sustainable development?
An alternative for Ted Trainer & Simplicity 
Institute’s strategy review, Australia
http://landrights4all.weebly.com/a-new-strategy-for--sustainability.html
https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B1FjRtnkgUpENVFGay1NMG9VbGc/edit
Chris 
Baulman  01May14 
<file:///mailto:landrights4all@gmail.com>landrights4all at gmail.com 
[NTW=Neighbourhoods That Work]
[]

INDEX 
page
BACKGROUND 
1
NEW 
STRATEGY 
3
             1. Begin with the 
poor                                                                       3
             2. Provide housing 
security                                                  5
             3. “Sell” a sustainable 
neighbourhood program                            7

Strategy 
components 
9

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

APPENDIX 1
Assumptions that Blind 
Us                                                                           10

APPENDIX 2
NTW 
Overview 
14

APPENDIX 3
Change the Activity 
Test 
18
APPENDIX 4
CreateVillage
A group intelligence 
system                                                             20

BACKGROUND

An increasing number of environmentalists are 
coming to the view that appealing to the middle 
class to make the necessary changes in behaviour is pretty hopeless.

Like you, I think the middle class won't abandon 
affluence until forced to do so. They hold the 
majority power in our democracy and they won't 
vote for government to bring about the depth of 
change necessary, so to put them or government at 
the heart of any strategy would be a mistake.

Those who are hoping for an appropriate level of 
change to be led by the middle class or by 
government will actually be waiting for economic 
or environmental collapse to bring change. That’s 
hardly a sustainable thing to hope for, although 
some “greenies” do believe the wipe out of our 
civilization and a good part of its population 
will be the only way forward – indeed some “pray” 
for Armageddon which would put us all in a truly 
hopeless mess. Anything like that would leave the 
earth poisoned for centuries with many more 
species wiped out – a great acceleration of what has begun.

I don’t think it’s necessarily greed that stops 
the middle class from abandoning affluence, but 
fear! Just to keep a roof overhead people must be 
successful in this unsustainable economy for 20 
years plus while they pay off a mortgage – or for 
life if they are renting. Fear of homelessness is a potent governance tool.

The total commodification of our birthright of 
free access to land for shelter & food is at the 
heart of this entrapment. A de-commodified way to 
have free access to land for shelter & food is 
key to our freedom to pursue a better way of 
meeting all our needs – land rights AND responsibilities!

If this talk of land (like air) as a free 
birthright leads you to think I am about to 
describe a revolutionary strategy involving major 
or unlikely change, I am not. In fact when you 
reflect on what I do suggest you will be 
surprised how small & achievable the change would 
need to be. No, I talk about land in this way so 
as to clearly identify what I see as the nature 
of the problem, but I want to suggest a way 
around it that avoids political obstacles!

Politics itself is divisive – 
socialist/communist/democracy/ whatever – if 
advocates for change are identified with any 
group they are seen as the enemy by another 
group. I don’t identify with ANY political/religious/philosophical group.

NEW STRATEGY

We know that at the very mention of 
“sustainability”, assumptions like “deprivation” 
start to take hold in the listener & block 
reception from then on. Neutralising common 
assumptions which have this effect needs to 
happen before any new strategy can be introduced. 
But as I am writing to you, an experienced group 
of change advocates, I can leave that issue to 
appendix 1 “Assumptions that Blind Us”.

So if the middleclass (or their representatives) 
won’t blaze the trail to sustainable living, who would?





1. BEGIN WITH THE POOR (& explain how benefits could trickle up)

As we agreed in earlier correspondence, the 
middle class will not change now or in time to 
avert disaster, but I say the poor are desperate 
for change right now. Since the poor are four 
fifths of the world, they are our real target for 
new & better development opportunities. They 
should be our environmental as well as our moral 
priority – AND they are already living on a 
sustainable level of income, or WAY less!

“Begin with the poor” – how many times have we 
heard this from the wisdom literature of many 
ancient traditions, or from modern sociologists? 
It’s not just a moral recommendation (first will 
be last, meek will inherit the earth etc etc ) – 
it’s actually also the only pragmatic thing to 
do! Richer people who can afford it may go solar, 
but if the other 4/5th of the world has to burn 
cow dung, the game is over for all of us. 
Conventional “trickle down” economics says ”yes, 
so we must create technology the 1/5th will 
invest in until it’s cheap enough for the 4/5th 
to afford”. But the 4/5th want a secure roof on 
which to put a solar cell first! .. meanwhile, 
they burn dung & everybody chokes!

The poor would take any way out of their poverty 
... even if it only HAPPENED to be a sustainable 
way. They wouldn’t need to be thinking about the 
earth at all to take such an opportunity! They 
wouldn’t need “educating”, they just need a chance!

The poor would gladly implement a program for 
sustainable suburban development right now, if 
there was immediate housing security in it for them!



This is not a selfish ambition. Housing security 
is a sustainable ambition for any number of 
people to hold, whether 7billion or more than 
20billion; there’s plenty of space. The main 
problem is that we are currently all locked into 
an unsustainable economic mechanism to achieve 
our housing security & other needs.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(strategy 1(b) – educate activists – incl 
centrality of land access for housing as a right, not charity or welfare)
2. PROVIDE HOUSING SECURITY

If only it was possible right now for those with 
no other way out of poverty to get their housing 
& income security by implementing a program for 
sustainable community development!

Well some of Australia’s landless unemployed poor 
CAN already secure their income and housing by 
doing voluntary community work (ii), but they 
don't have a sustainability program before them 
as an option, so they sort clothes for St Vincent DePaul instead.

They are unemployed Public/Social Housing 
tenants, over 55yrs, & they already have both 
housing AND income security by meeting their 
Centrelink mutual obligations doing voluntary 
community work (iv) at Vinnies etc..

The change needed to allow them to do sustainable 
community development is simply a matter of 
“selling” that program to a community 
organisation, many of which are already 
Centrelink approved & experienced to engage such volunteers.


------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(strategy2(b) – describe/develop a sustainable development program –
Use CreateVillage forum (i) for collaborative 
transparency, individual & collective empowerment 
– collaboration is imperative for empowerment & 
“ownership”. CreateVillage was invented for this 
because no other suitable way was available)

(strategy2 (c) – data to show the viability of 
this voluntary work policy from the over 55’s 
experience – Bettina Cass? – Marie O’Halloran)
(strategy2 (d) – campaign for retention of this 
option for Over55’s & expansion to ALL unemployed 
(iii) see APPENDIX 3 Change Centrelink’s Activity Test)

If ALL the landless poor in Australia with no 
other realistic hope could achieve rental housing 
security by volunteering in such a program 
(including building & veggie growing) (see 
APPENDIX 3)
 & if this showed viability for 
taxpayers 
 an Australian prototype could blaze a 
trail for the rest of the world's economies which 
are struggling with unemployment, poverty & climate change.

Of course after meeting our basic needs of secure 
shelter & food, it’s human nature to want more, 
but “much more” can be sustainable if the method 
is right. You & I are sure that a rich and 
sustainable life is possible using the right program.

Some will get work in the market place, but under 
Centrelink & Housing requirements, their increase 
in income will require them to pay more rent (25% 
of income up to market value). Even if they do 
get paid employment, they still have a caretaking 
role to fall back on. If their paid employment 
continues they will be able to spend less time 
caretaking. If their lifestyle becomes more

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------strategy3 
(a) “sell” a sustainable neighbourhoods program 
(see APPENDIX 2 NTW Overview ) to community 
organisations (v) 
 they’ll love the government 
funding & Community Development aspects(vi)
Encourage & support them to take volunteers 
wanting to participate in order to meet their 
Centrelink obligations (use CreateVillage to 
support participation, accountability & 
collaborative management). Describe the easy 
pathway to govt approval of their organisation & 
of the person on benefits wanting Centrelink approval (vii)
strategy3 (b) “sell” this tenant caretaker 
participation to Dept of Housing & Community 
Housing providers (easy – they’ve been trying to 
achieve tenant participation for years to reduce 
their tenant & building maintenance costs (viii))
strategy3 (c) Use TAFE Outreach in on-site training/supervision (ix)
strategy3 (d) Encourage Dept of Housing & 
Community Housing providers to set up a dedicated 
prototype ((x) .. precedents) with interested 
unemployed people off the top of the waiting list 
(strategy1 (d) – educate activists – 
non-participation isn’t a problem for the 
program, that’s safely left between Centrelink, NGO & individual)
strategy3 (e) If this is as viable, productive & 
personally rewarding as we have been telling 
people it would be ((xi) ..data needed), it will 
be attractive for taxpayers to continue & expand 
it. (strategy1 (e) – educate activists in the 
viability of voluntary participation AND of 
tenant non-participation – see also Change Centrelink)

  luxurious than public housing can represent for 
them, they’ll move on. As they are already paying 
market rent in public housing, they might prefer to pay market rent elsewhere.

As we know, only a certain level of engagement in 
this economy is environmentally sustainable, but 
most tenant incomes could increase somewhat before it was unsustainable.

Again, if we are right, technological job 
redundancy & the redistribution of employment AND 
UN-employment more evenly around the world will 
ensure that a growing number of people would be 
looking for security as caretakers.

3. “SELL” A SUSTAINABLE NEIGHBOURHOOD PROGRAM

So, if the decline already underway continues, 
the needs will get greater. Taxpayers & 
businesses will be ever keener to reduce their 
growing welfare liabilities & find cheaper ways 
to keep the peace. Greater self reliance among 
the poor will become the catch cry & their social 
inclusion will be essential for stability.

The right balance will be achieved & maintained 
by captalism’s creation of redundancies & by its “efficiencies” in welfare.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(strategy1 (c) Form ties with 3rd world activists 
to give them credibility rather than the 
desperate message of hopelessness they have now – 
activist education – evolution from the very 
bottom, not political or movement revolution) The 
steps would be to attract the poor unemployed 
landless first, then the insecure employed, the 
employed activists, rich kids struggling to make 
it, then the rich themselves would adopt more 
environmental elements/attitudes.



The benefits of this program will flow both ways. 
These Caretaker tenants of public land & housing 
will be pressed by circumstance to become ever 
more effective in their self sufficiency on fewer 
& fewer resources from government or the market 
place. Their ability to do this will 
substantially reduce the cost of public housing & unemployment.

There won’t be any temptation for government to 
flog the willing horse – their participation will 
be voluntarily chosen as a new mutual obligation 
opportunity, (not like work for the dole, green 
army etc which create inefficient resentments by 
being mandatory) and self management using 
CreateVillage will make participation “owned” & accountable.

Thanks partly to your team, many thousands in the 
middle class have been educated about social 
justice & environmental sustainability over many 
decades & they would support change, so long as 
it didn’t threaten them – indeed if it enhanced 
their own circumstances they would be excited to 
do so. They are well prepared for such change.

I agree we need people working from all angles, 
but tell me is there anyone else working from 
this angle? Instead the entire energy is 
hopelessly focused on reforming the middle class. 
Why flog a dead horse? There are many willing 
horses needing just a little more opportunity to 
run (xi 
 housing/food security) (xii .. 
landRIGHTS on commons, not owner title).

You have the ear of many others who agree with 
your analysis that we need to take a new 
direction. If I could convince you to feel more 
hopeful about this strategy than you do about the 
current strategy, the effect could be enormous.

To list the elements,
the STRATEGY COMPONENTS should


1. BEGIN WITH THE POOR (& show how benefits can trickle up)
strategy1 (b) – educate activists – incl re 
centrality of land access for housing as a birthright, not charity or welfare
strategy1 (c) – activist education – EVOLUTION 
from the very bottom, not political or movement revolution
strategy1 (d) – educate activists – 
non-participation isn’t a problem for the program
strategy1 (e) – educate activists in the 
viability of & need for VOLUNTARY participation 
AND therefore also of non-participation



2. PROVIDE HOUSING SECURITY
strategy2 (b) – develop a tenant participation program
strategy2 (c) – data to show the viability of 
tenant participation policy with the over 55’s
strategy2 (d) – campaign for retention of this 
option for Over55’s & expansion to ALL unemployed



3. “SELL” A SUSTAINABLE NEIGHBOURHOOD PROGRAM
strategy3 (a) “sell” a sustainable neighbourhoods 
program (see APPENDIX 2 NTW Overview) to community organisations
strategy3 (b) “sell” this tenant participation to 
Dept of Housing & Community Housing
strategy3 (c) Use TAFE Outreach in on-site training/supervision
strategy3 (d) Encourage Dept of Housing & 
Community Housing providers to set up a dedicated prototype
strategy3 (e) Educate public about the viability, 
productivity, personal rewards & neighbourhood 
benefits for them &the attractions for taxpayers to continue & expand it.



The entire pitch must be unifying, not divisive/confronting.
We will have to scuttle predictable assumptions 
every time at the start so as to remove 
preconceptions & establish a new non-political, 
non-threatening, attractive foundation for 
understanding 
 even describing the positive role 
capitalism & the rich majority plays in this context.

We’re in this together!
(Appendix 1)
ASSUMPTIONS THAT BLIND
Do you think of communism or agrarian socialism 
or authoritarianism when you hear talk of 
“commons” or “landrights” for food & shelter? 
 
do you fear a threat to property rights? 
 do you 
think of rural isolation & acres rather than 
suburban medium density development? 
 do you think of manual laboring?

You will need to dismiss these assumptions in 
order to understand this proposal.

When you hear of cooperative development, do you 
suspect a loss of individuality or privacy?

Does environmental sustainability make your mind 
jump to total self-sufficiency, back to basics, 
loss of comforts of modern life? Does “sustainability” make you feel guilty?

Does unemployment make you think of poverty, 
welfare, loss of status, dependency, decay, 
depression, exclusion rather than opportunity?

There are good reasons why people think of all 
these things, but they are all assumptions which 
will stop us from seeing more viable options. 
This proposal doesn’t involve any of those 
assumptions – it’s not business or paid 
employment related, not a pathway to home 
ownership, not separatist, not hippie. It’s 
mainstream & can be fully integrated within 
capitalism without being seen to threaten its 
supporters in any way. It will improve their 
property values, reduce their taxes & make public 
housing a desirable component of any neighbourhood.

Nobody thinks “communism” in connection with 
social housing or community gardens, yet social 
or public housing & community gardens are in fact 
commons which could provide food as well as 
shelter. These commons are neither capitalism nor 
any of its political opposites .. and they are 
not mid-way between. They can be a different way 
of having land security for meeting needs, but 
they also sit entirely comfortably within capitalism & democracy.

So in this description of a co-operative, 
collaborative use of commons for environmentally 
sustainable living, I ask you to dismiss 
preconceptions about rural, separatist, left (or 
right) leaning, welfare dependent or deprived living.

I ask you to expect instead a description of how 
unemployed people could be fully integrated with 
modern suburban life. Expect them to add a value 
to neighbourhoods that is being sorely missed by 
middle class neighbours. Expect to see an 
opportunity for as many participants as needed 
for our economy to be sustainable, even in the 
face of technological job replacement, resource 
limits or globalisation. (That benefit alone 
would be a significant return on investment.)

But I also want you to start to imagine how 
co-operative, low cost, sustainable living would 
start to develop new ways of doing things – new 
processes & low-tech tools more suited to the 
vast majority of people in the world who are 
currently deprived. Currently, because they see 
no easier option, they are competing to climb the 
ladder to the high cost, high impact lives of 
rich nations in order to put a secure roof overhead and food in their stomachs.

The key to this new opportunity is for unemployed 
people on the lowest of incomes to be able to get 
& maintain secure access to suburban land for 
housing by being prepared to co-operate rather 
than by being forced to try to compete, to win & 
then to out-bid each other for housing.

Co-operation would involve them in anything & 
everything from project management through to 
building maintenance & gardening in line with 
their abilities. With the new process now on 
CreateVillage, expertise & leadership is 
superseded by group intelligence & cooperative ownership.

Electing to co-operate instead wouldn’t 
discourage or encourage participants to seek market place employment.

The existing formula for public housing rent 
would apply. In this formula, tenants simply pay 
25% of their income up to market value – they 
don’t lose their housing security. While ever 
rent was being paid, even failure to maintain 
project co-operation would result in nothing 
other than loss of a share in co-operative 
advantages that come from sharing projects, like 
veggie gardens, car-sharing or other projects 
which participants may initiate for their personal benefit.

Whether people continue participation or not, 
social housing residents and private neighbours 
could still enjoy being able to buy any excess 
produce from a local community garden, to benefit 
from non-participating shares in neighbourhood 
projects, and everybody would benefit from being 
able to simply live in such a revitalised neighbourhood environment.

If at the end of the detail, your mind goes to 
BIG change 
 law, policy, government, cost 
 
think instead about evolution from one small 
group of neighbours to another, & ultimately 
between communities in different countries.

Virtually all that is needed is already in place! 
You will also see that assumptions about costs 
and management are reactionary rather than based 
in the reality of the proposal.

The change can be largely self-managed & 
ultimately built by tenants. This would be a huge 
saving on current costs of long term unemployment 
& social housing, with returns that would warrant 
much larger investment in the future, whether 
people get paid employment or not!

This change can’t be categorised as any “ism” 
that would invite competition or division – it’s 
about cooperation & mutual benefit at every point.

Ted Strategy appendix2 - NTW
Neighbourhoods That Work  Overview
NTW is a concept for achieving a ‘neighbourhood 
that works’ - a place where most of us would like to live.
Neighbourhoods could be vibrant, productive, fun 
and sustainable places to live. Beyond what it 
would do for the local community this also has increasing global significance.
Dr. Ted Trainer from NSW University says that 
while greener industries and greener technologies 
will play an important role in the future, 
sustainability must also involve more self 
sufficiency and more cooperation at both 
household and neighbourhood levels. (1)

A New Opportunity Needed
For those of us who would like to help make our 
neighbourhood work, there are good reasons why we 
may not be inclined to get involved. Many of us 
are just too busy, paying the mortgage, it being 
by far the greatest pressure facing families. 
Even the pressure of paying a rent these days 
leaves little if any time for things like the 
neighbourhood. In any event, a six or twelve 
month lease may also feel just too insecure to 
make such neighbourhood commitments.

So with just about everybody too busy and / or 
lacking sufficient security, who is left to make a neighbourhood that works?


Ted Strategy appendix2 - NTW
Who Might Get Into It?
There are many thousands of Australians who, 
because they have no marketable role are 
marginalised. For the most part, these people are 
not totally incapacitated, it’s the fact that 
they may find themselves marginalised, often 
without housing security or a role that leads to problems.
If they had housing security, some might 
willingly take up the challenge of developing and 
applying skills for a neighbourhood that works, 
if by doing so they could find a meaningful role 
and a real sense of belonging in their 
communities. Fresh food from a community garden 
or access to a shared resource like a box trailer 
could also be incentives for people who need to stretch their dollars further.
Where competitive employment and welfare 
dependency has marginalised, an opportunity like 
this could be a new way forward for some, 
liberating that natural inclination to look for 
improvement once we have control over the basics.

Housing Security that Supports Participation
Core to this idea is the integration of 
neighbourhood participation with a person’s 
natural right to establish a secure home.
To provide the rental housing security for this 
commitment to the neighbourhood, government would 
be the ideal landlord 
 marginalisation and the 
betterment of neighbourhoods also being government concerns.
Needed By All
A socially and environmentally sustainable 
neighbourhood that works is not only needed by 
marginalised people looking for security and 
social participation, it is also a critically 
important neighbourhood culture that Australia is largely missing.
With rental security and some simple grass roots 
supports, even small groups of people could make 
all the difference in any neighbourhood. Even if 
other people in the neighbourhood have no time to 
participate, they would still benefit from a more 
engaged and vibrant neighbourhood.
Engaging people in neighbourhood activity would 
have very important social, environmental and 
economic benefits for all Australians.


Ted Strategy appendix2 - NTW
Creating The Right Supports – NTW Activity Organiser
The NTW Activity Organiser is designed to support 
neighbourhood activity by showing how ideas can 
easily be developed either individually or by 
getting together with others, broken into simple 
steps and put into practice. Whether someone has 
just 5 minutes to share an idea, or an hour to 
spend on the ground, the activity organiser 
allows people the freedom to get involved at a 
time and in a way that best suits them. It 
provides for casual yet defined participation. (2)

Local Economy
Neighbourhood participation could provide a valid 
role and build new skills. For those who need 
such arrangements, it may even be counted as an 
approved Centrelink work experience or voluntary 
work activity. (3) However it is important to 
keep in mind that free and willing participation 
can be supported and encouraged, but not mandated.
The potential is also there for neighbourhood 
participation to reach a level of productivity 
and accountability to warrant the payment of a 
small income. This type of work opportunity is 
likely to become very important as more and more 
market employment is specialised and centralised in cities.

NTW in Public Housing
In the midst of two public housing estates 
located at Hope Street in the Blue Mountains just 
west of Sydney, neighbours are starting to use the supports devised by NTW.
A food garden, a car pool, an ornamental 
beautification program and some social events have all taken place.

Ted Strategy appendix2 - NTW
As at Hope Street, public housing estates 
represent a great opportunity for NTW 
participation because tenants have the sort of 
housing security needed, as well as the incentive 
to improve their situation in a new more local and cooperative way. (4)
NTW seeks to translate whatever the natural 
energy that different neighbours have into a 
sustaining, vibrant and truly viable neighbourhood that works.

A NTW Model
NTW could also progress ‘by design’, even more 
deliberately than through the ‘evolutionary’ process happening at Hope Street.
In new public housing and even in long-term 
leases which private or church landlords might 
grant, would-be residents and all who were 
interested in the NTW concept could come together 
beforehand to help identify and start a cooperative
approach.
To make up the core group, ten eligible 
applicants for public housing could be selected 
for their demonstrated practical interest in the 
vision of Neighbourhoods that Work (NTW). In this 
model they would be able to rent adjacent to each 
other to maximise their opportunities for cooperation.
With a 'hands off' but supportive approach, they 
could be offered a long-term lease and become 
that critical mass for a neighbourhood that works. (5)
Neighbourhood participation has been shown to 
dramatically improve the safety, vibrancy and 
general well-being of all sorts of communities. 
If such important outcomes could be achieved with 
little to no extra cost and within existing 
government requirements, investment in secure and 
affordable rental housing could become much more 
attractive for government and private developers.

A Neighbourhood That Works
The current mortgage/ rental situation has work 
and lifestyle implications that don’t leave much 
energy for the neighbourhood. With the right sort 
of rental security and supports, a vibrant, 
productive, inclusive and sustainable 
neighbourhood culture could be encouraged. We 
could have ‘neighbourhood that works!’

APPENDIX 3
Change Centrelink's Activity Test

While in many cases unemployed people want or 
need certain Centrelink supervision, in the case 
of an individual who would CHOOSE to do community 
work for an organisation that has itself already 
been approved, three current restrictions are inappropriate and unnecessary.

i) community work is only allowed if it can be 
shown that it is likely to lead to paidemployment 
or if the individual can satisfy the case manager 
that it will improve their employability;
ii) approval is only given for a limited time.
iii) those wanting to do community work for an 
approved organisation must have a third party 
(either Centrelink or its agent) to individually 
approve and “case manage” their activity;

To understand why these restrictions should be 
scrapped, it is helpful to see unemployed people in three groups.

The three groups are:

1. Those who will not quickly find employment, 
and will not choose community work.

Appropriate Centrelink intervention is needed for 
people in this group, but because they will not 
choose community work, any community work 
restrictions are irrelevant for them.

2. The majority, who are keen to find employment 
and do so within 3 months. From within this 
group, some may wish to do community work. They 
may see it as a pathway to the job and the income 
they want, or perhaps as a way of staying productive.

The three Centrelink restrictions are superfluous 
for this group because these people return to 
employment quickly through their own initiative.

3. Those who will not quickly find employment, 
but would choose to do community work.

The three restrictions i), ii) & iii) mentioned 
above, are inappropriate for this group because -

• the incentive of a higher income will, by 
itself, see most of these people back into 
employment as soon as they can get it;
• the current restrictions discount the value of 
continued community work, and a person’s autonomy 
and self-motivation are discouraged.
• even if employment is not on the horizon, 
continuing with community work will still mean 
unemployment being a more productive experience, 
particularly for those people having trouble 
finding work in today’s highly competitive labour market;
• developing new skills and staying active in the 
workplace increases employment potential;
• the fact that someone has chosen to do 32 hours 
of community work in a fortnight should be 
evidence enough that they are strongly motivated and keen to participate;

Community work should be a standard option on the 
fortnightly claim form. The random phone check, 
which Centrelink now uses in an attempt to verify 
job applications to employers, would verify with 
certainty claims of community work with 
organisations without any need for Centrelink 
involvement in arrangements between the volunteer and the organisation.

If a person who had chosen community work decided 
not to continue, they would simply tick a 
different box on the form. This would indicate 
that they had been doing some other approved 
activity, such as study or job search.

This simple change would also help create 
abundant sustainable work in which people could 
learn to build social housing & grow their own food
(see APPENDIX 2 - NTW Overview )

@landrights4all


APPENDIX 4
CreateVillage
A group intelligence system

The literature on tenant participation points to 
the failure of tenant participation governance 
processes to engage and the need for new, more 
accessible and more tenant owned approaches to participation.

An attempt at developing a program has been 
undertaken in the Blue Mountains by a grass-roots 
public tenant’s community group called 
‘Neighbourhood That Works’. This participation 
process, known as ‘CreateVillage’, has been 
specifically conceived by tenants as a ‘tenant 
owned space’ that supports the sort of 
‘instrumental approach to participation’ that 
researchers such as McKee (2008:34) suggest is needed.

The Village on-line application has grown out of 
the need for methods of organisation that are 
simple, accessible and non-hierarchical.

Why Online
No matter how simplified, all non-web based 
methods of engagement have significant barriers 
to participation in that participants are asked 
to break their routine and step out of their 
normal lives to attend an event. This raises many 
issues around convenience such as the breaking of 
normal routines, cost and organisation of venues, 
childcare and so on. Beyond these major 
convenience issues, a host of other problems are 
also very difficult if not impossible to avoid. 
As McKee’s (2008) research found, most people 
want to participate only on issue of their 
choosing, people are silenced by dominant voices, 
there is a shortage of time and many competing 
agendas and the potential for conflict (AHURI, 
2003) is high. These are just a few of the 
problems of the meeting or forum environment. As 
long as these barriers to participation persist 
then we will only hear from a minority of the 
community – usually the same people each time. 
While these people are to be applauded for the 
effort, they are by no means representative. 
Having an online application is about accessing 
more of those in the silent majority and 
providing them with an opportunity to participate 
at a time, place and on an issue of their own choosing.

The Hook for Locals
To get people to first visit the Village site a 
simple poster could stimulate neighbour interest 
and then direct people to the Village website for information.

This poster could be placed on local community 
notice boards, in the local newspaper, in local 
shop windows or at the local neighbourhood 
centre, library etc.. The posters, available from 
the Village website, could be refreshed by locals 
to feature different activities. If the Village 
concept catches on as a site for relevant local 
information and discussion people would 
increasingly seek out a local Village site in 
their own neighbourhood. If one didn’t exist they 
could set one up as easily as setting up a forum like a Google group.


What Village Looks Like
When people first visit the Village website they 
will find an online space where:
• local activities could be advertised,
• local discussions could be had and
• local organisation could be shared.


Village offers a full and ever changing list of 
local events and discussions to encourage repeat 
visits, a way to easily introduce a new idea 
without too much commitment, a way to find 
other’s interest, and a way to share ownership and development of ideas.

Village is designed for the support of community 
based groups such as public tenant seeking to 
engage in community development projects like 
community gatherings or festivals or community 
gardens. In this way the Village app could 
provide an important opportunity for public 
tenant engagement around housing consultation and 
management related issues. Beyond being designed 
for a single activity, Village would be set up to 
play host to a local area like a street or 
perhaps a number of close streets for any number of activities.

The first two functions of Village (listing local 
activities and having local discussions) simply 
occur in a discussion forum. There are many such 
community forums on the net. The only real 
innovation here is that it is an entirely local, 
community development, use of such forums.

Once someone had set up a free Village space, 
anyone can join at no cost by providing an email 
and password. They can then add a discussion or 
event by simply clicking ‘new post’ and going for 
it. Like all of Village this would be easy to set 
up and completely free of cost.

The third component of Village (after the 
discussions and the ‘what’s on’ posts) is an 
online process for organising activities for 
anyone wanting to ‘kick of a local idea’ like a 
Street Christmas Party. Such an activity may also 
be something like an approach to a social housing 
authority on an issue of collective concern.

Step 1: Describe the activity
The first step is for someone to kick-off an 
activity description (Figure 3). This part of 
Village will invite discussion around the key 
aspects of that activity - what, who, when, why 
and what, if any, cost. This will be done to see 
if common ground can be found. This is just like 
posting any new message in the Village forum but 
instead of hitting ‘new post’ they would hit ‘kick off a new activity’.

Like all new discussions, this new ‘Kick off a 
new idea’ post would automatically appear in the Village forum.

Whether it is a group or an individual that 
establishes the step one description, their 
vision becomes a transparent reference point for 
all group decisions and shared authority. 
Metcalf’s (1995) study found it was the groups 
with the clearest and most articulated agreements 
that were most likely to survive. In effect, this 
step establishes a constitution for the group 
activity, but does so in a way that is consistent 
with the informal nature of SHGs.

Step 2 – List Jobs
Once a description has been agreed on by all 
involved in step one, a second step in the 
process is to list all the jobs associated with 
the activity. So everyone can easily find the 
discussion and be involved, this job brainstorm 
would appear immediately beneath the description 
done in step one. The Step 2 format will allow 
people to brainstorm jobs, discuss those jobs, 
date the jobs, provide some job steps and even 
list the jobs under some key headings.

Like step 1 description, this second step would 
automatically appear as a continuation of the discussion link.

In this step those involved are able to:
• Decide and see WHAT needs to be done, WHEN and HOW
• Add, agree on and share tasks without meetings
• Avoid one person needing to know it all, which can lead to burnout
• Overcome tension between the need for structure 
and the often casual nature of community participation
• Break tasks down to small jobs - making 
unskilled participation far more accessible.
• Assert community 'ownership' of local knowledge 
and skill development (NTW, 2008).


Final Planner
Once the data has been entered a planner can 
automatically be viewed which can be edited and 
added to at any time. This planner will appear 
under the other messages in the relevant subject in the forum

Using the ‘Job Cards’ a concise list of job steps 
can be added to each job over time so that each 
activity can have agreed job steps and so jobs 
can become very accessible to everyone. There 
would of course also be a way that people could 
show that they have taken on a particular job and 
show that they have done it. Everything remains 
editable so the activity can develop over time.


Conclusion
 From the very start, Village is offering each 
and every community member a unique space where 
they can fully and conveniently express their 
perspective free from the constraint of peer 
interruption, qualification or domination. 
Despite all the ideas embedded in Village, step 
one of brainstorming and negotiating a 
description and step two of brainstorming and 
negotiating a jobs list are pretty straight 
forward, intuitive and simple steps community participants can easily take.

The online process used in Village where people 
are writing their ideas silently and in parallel, 
stands in direct contrast to the vocal and 
unilateral way people typically communicate in 
face to face groups (Butcher, Collis, Glen and 
Sills, 1980). In this way Village is moving away 
from what writers like Hearn and Parkin (1983) 
and Lannello (1992) would describe as a 
patriarchal management paradigm, where a contest 
of ideas is won by the most dominant voice.

Achieving high commitment decisions through high 
levels of participation, giving everyone a voice, 
and empowering an individual or a minority to 
take an idea forward are all central themes 
within the fields of self-help (Burns, Williams 
and Windebank, 2004), participatory community 
develop (Kenny, 1999; Ife, 2002) and cooperative 
group work (Dressler, 2006; Saint and Lawson, 
1994). Village draws on and structures these 
principles into a process that is simple and 
intuitive enough for use by most people. Through 
using Village the tension between the need for 
structure and the often informal and voluntary 
nature of community participation can begin to be 
addressed. This would seem like a good example of 
the sort of community empowerment structure Kenny 
(1999) and Campfrens (1997) refer to the need for

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mailman.gn.apc.org/mailman/private/diggers350/attachments/20140604/fc3ac1d5/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/x-ygp-stripped
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://mailman.gn.apc.org/mailman/private/diggers350/attachments/20140604/fc3ac1d5/attachment.bin>