Use of vacant public housing properties

I agree, as I have on numerous occasions stated, it is my belief that public housing has been provided out of our genuine social concern that people should at a minimum have a roof over their heads.

I also believe that because it has been provided out of our social concience, we reserve the right to disallow or discontinue that priviledge that we are providing upon any funny business occurring.

I continue to fail to understand why we are so complacent regarding public housing. It has been provided at our expense, and is provided to people in housing distress, and is a short term solution.

If people want to play funny business, watch them whinge from a tent, at the bottom of the list.

Perhaps this is because so many of those said people in housing assistance are those members of the general public who are so fragile that it is remarkable they have shown up to work fully clothed, fed, watered, showered and shaven, yet seem to be ok with ranting about how hard done by they are to the nearest Naomi or Ray, all the while glorifying how much they look like the aussie battler when it could be no farther from the truth.

The inclusion of four simple words in the contract would fix this entire situation; “subject to annual review”.

Thanks seepi – I didn’t know there was a specific timeframe involved. Although it worries me that at any one time there may be so many houses sitting idle while people are effecetivley homeless. Three months is too long for out resources to go untouched and unused. If people vacate a property for more than a month without informing ACT housing, they should lose their spot and it should be allocated to the next on the list.

Ms Burke, thanks again for taking the time to answer a couple questions relating to subjects often discussed at RA.

Yes – I haven’t heard a single person support either the arboretum or the busway. I actually think the busway is Simon Corbell’s red herring that he drags out to occupy the media whenever he is about to pass some dodgy land deal.

To answer a question above, ACT housing properties are left alone for 3 months after being reported as empty, in case the tenants return.

Considering the current deficit budgetary position of the Stanhope government, simply put it is a matter of prioritisation of funding allocation from revenue sourced.

This would change during each budgetary process. Based on funding priorities, expenditure would be allocated to address the priorities of the government.

From a personal perspective, as they are within my portfolio responsibilities, I see housing, along with disability and community services, as clear budgetary priorities. These are essential services that any government should maintain.

This requires a fair proportion of financial responsibility in order to fund these essential services adequately and to continue to make inroads into addressing demand.

To bolster this point further, government’s should not take commitments to an election (2004 as an example) that could not be given priority.

In the lean fiscal years that are to come during the rest of this electoral cycle the ALP’s commitment of $30 million capital injection into social housing for three years springs to mind.

Although it is desirable for any government of the day to maintain flexibility in determining its spending priorities, drawing funds from across all revenue sources and not committing certain revenue streams to specific portfolio-related expenditure, there must be some scope to make firm commitments to funding essential services in preference to grandiose projects such the Arboretum or a Busway.

Many thanks Ms Burke – I appreciate the time you have taken preparing your response. I think the crux of your response is acknowledging that currently the AFP have a resourcing issue; thus are finding it difficult to clean up some fo these problem areas; and the fact that ACT housing seemd to be unable to keep tabs on what is happening in their tenancies. More regular reviews and inspections of properties (albeit external inspections), would be terrific way to start the ball rolling.

Finally I would like to ask your opinion on the ‘greater commitment’ you have mentioned: If you think there is and will continue to be a funding issue for ACT housing, where would you suggest the ACT source the increased revenue required to offset this?

Hear hear.

In response to comments so far:

‘Ms Burke, could you please tell us what the ACT needs to do in order to bring our housing system up to par – and how would you implement the necessary changes? Finally – is there any feasible way we can ‘clean up’ these tenancies so that the occurrence of assault, vandalism and drug related crime is reduced?’

Firstly, the policing matter in relation to unlawful activity is something that is being addressed, at some level by ACT policing. However, ACT Policing could obviously be resourced further to conduct more ‘Operations’ targeting concentrated incidences of property crime, assault and drug-related crime. I am mindful that see-saw effect can occur when the police are forced to increase their response to one area of crime which can take resources away from other areas of community policing.

To the credit of government, in some instances, there has been a real improvement in the environs of multi-unit complexes. (I draw your attention to the Liberals approach to this back in 2003 – http://www.canberraliberals.org.au/default.cfm?action=news_detail&ID=2233

An example where some positive results have been achieved through tenant participation and increased vigilance is Gowrie Court in Narrabundah. Of course there are some other problem sites, usually with a higher concentration of residents who may require more specialist services, which of course becomes more resource intensive and places further pressure on the Housing Department.

I support any moves to rejuvenate and/or redevelop some of the older large multi-unit complex sites, as the ageing stock and amenities at these sites no longer match tenant need or current building standards.

Any government of the day will have to comply with obligations under the Commonwealth State Housing Agreement. One major tenet of the Agreement is the requirement to re-invest any income from sales/redevelopment back into the public housing sector.

Accordingly, I would anticipate the government will shortly be announcing some of its plans to enter into further Joint Ventures with the private sector. It is to be hoped that this will achieve some real gain in affordable housing stock, whether it is public housing, affordable private rental or stock for sale. It would be beneficial to see this taken one step further to see some of the sites being redeveloped as mixed housing options that satisfy more than just the social housing component of affordable housing.

With any reference to tenants who break the law or are in constant breach of their tenancies, naturally they should face the consequences of their actions where a matter is deemed serious regardless of whether they are public or private tenants – they fall under the same Act.

However, if the Government were to conduct more regular reviews of public housing tenancies – for both full market renters and rebated tenants – departmental staff would be in the position to monitor, on a regular basis, if there is a need for intervention (eg. Property damage, rental arrears or debt management, neighbourhood disputes which require referral to Police/Conflict Resolution).

To bring the system up to par, a good starting point would be to redress the obviously contentious matter of the current Government’s ‘security of tenure’ policy.

The point of difference being here that the Liberals will reassess the eligibility and allocations criterion and put in place a model that better reflects and clearly addresses ‘need’ of a prospective Housing client for the period of their need.

The argument surrounding the reliance of the system on full market renters will become a problem for any government of the day that does not recognise the percentage of full market renters is dwindling. This is forecast to drop further due to Housing ACT concentrating predominantly now on housing people most in need (which it should naturally be doing).

The Housing Minister will have to source other forms of funds to cover this trend in reductions in revenue that have been relied upon to cover costs of offering rebated rent to the majority of Housing ACT tenants.

There is a clear and obvious point of difference here between the ALP and the Liberal Party about what the eligibility criteria should be for gaining and maintaining a public housing tenancy agreement.

The Liberal Party is committed to offering public housing as just one of the affordable housing options to those most in need for the duration of that need.

In conjunction with this approach to re-aligning public policy for housing, greater commitment will be needed to increasing the number of affordable private rental options and wherever possible encouraging and supporting people with the financial means into home ownership.

I think it is perfectly reasonable to expect the government to take a leadership role in working towards offering a number of different options for affordable housing in the ACT, which are targeted and responsive to meet any projected need.

Two thumbs up guys. totally agree with you

Cheers Mael – I think we’re on the right track. Perhaps the honourable Ms Burke can take some of our suggestions on board and float them in the appropriate forum. This would be preferable because it would save guys like us standing for the assembly in years to come – thus putting the more inactive and unresponsive MLA’s out of work.

As for my comment on Ms Foskey – it applies to all of her ilk; i.e. anyone who ties up assets that should be available for the truly needy. If more funding is needed then I suggest we source the money from the arboretum project (did somebody say white elephant?), Civic redevelopement projects, MLA’s paychecks (sorry Jacqui – but it’s a bloody good wicket y’all are on), and the upcoming Canberra Centenary Celebrations. I think it more important to have our needy housed than set up a series of wasteful public spectacles.

What better way to celebrate what should be one of the world’s best cities than to combat this ongoing problem? Without sounding like a wanker, I think we should be an example to cities accross the country (and the world), and having a viable public housing system is vital.

Bulldog, I like your thinking.

Perhaps if housing damages were automatically attributed towards a Centrelink debt we would find more public tennants looking after their cherished roof over their heads.

There’s nothing like the threat of an impending bill to change somebody’s mind about putting a hammer through every bit of gyprock in the house.