Modification plans Lists The modifications agreed by the second house are communicated to the first house for review. The following measures of the two Assemblies may also be included in a timetable. .M Turnbull (Prime Minister), S Morrison (Treasurer), C Porter (Minister of Social Services) and Z Seselja (Deputy Minister of Social Services and Multicultural Affairs), $117 million for new funding for the homeless, joint press release, December 9, 2016. In short, Martin and Pawson argue that “public and territorial housing authorities and non-government providers of affordable housing need a larger subsidy than current funding.”  The bill introduces a trigger for the retention of financial resources for state and territory governments when they do not meet criteria defined in bulk. While we support more transparency and accountability, this punitive approach undermines a collaborative and transnational approach and risks continued funding instability and political friction. It also threatens the viability of Frontline services and housing programmes. Nor does the bill provide for the necessary accountability and transparency mechanisms. We believe that an independent body should be established to monitor and evaluate performance, analyse data on housing supply and demand and strengthen the database for decision-making at all levels of government. 1. The State is a party to both a primary housing contract and a supplementary housing contract for the financial year .
Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs (DFHCSIA), What`s the way home? A New Approach to Homelessness, Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra, May 2008, pp. 27-8. As part of its national affordable housing strategy, the PLA has committed to working with states “to achieve better results and outcomes under the National Affordable Accord, including strengthening benchmarks across the spectrum of affordable housing, such as housing supply, planning reform and inclusive zoning.”  Under the amended provisions, states and territories are not required to honour funding for the Commonwealth allocation. Under NAHA, there is no identified program funding, i.e. funding for a particular housing or homelessness objective (as was the case under CSHA). Instead, it is up to states and territories to determine the amount of resources to be devoted to certain public housing programs and services. They are not required to report on the allocation of NAHA funds. . .