15 March 2012

Public Housing not an unconditional home for life?

15 March 2012 | johnboy

The Age has the long overdue news that the ACT Government is going to move to turf high income earners out of public housing.

The ACT Government is powerless to force middle-class households out of government homes, despite thousands of families being on the waiting lists.

Instead, housing bureaucrats can only ask tenants on more than $80,000 per year to ”reconsider” their continued presence in public housing.

But Housing Minister Joy Burch is considering legislative changes to send a message that public housing is not an unconditional home for life.

Roslyn Dundas from the ACT Council of Social Services predictably thinks this idea is not so great.

UPDATE 15/03/12 12:00: The Greens are not at all happy about the proposals:

ACT Greens Health spokesperson, Amanda Bresnan MLA, has described the ACT Government’s proposal to take market renters out of public housing as lacking a long-term vision for public housing.

“The Government is proposing an extremely short term solution to Housing ACT’s long waiting list. There also is no detail at all about how they would replace the revenue lost from those paying market rent,” Ms Bresnan said.

“In most of these cases we are probably talking about single, middle aged to older women, with very little superannuation. We need to think about what will happen to them in the long term.

“We also face the situation where if tenants believe they will be evicted once they earn a certain income, they could choose to stay in their home and earn a lower income. This is counterproductive to the aim of giving people stability and the ability to be a contributing member of the community.

“Tenants who can get to the stage of paying market rent in Housing ACT properties are able to subsidise those other tenants on low incomes.

“Evicting market renters will only make the Housing ACT portfolio more unviable. The Government needs to show the cost of replacing this revenue. There was no accounting for this in the Public Housing Asset Management Strategy that was just released late last year.

Join the conversation

117

All Comments

All Comments
Website Comments
Facebook Comments

LatestOldest

Genie6:29 pm 19 Mar 12

Sorry to double post.. but the next ‘related story’ http://the-riotact.com/public-housing-gets-a-hurry-up/4726 is from 2007. Talking about public housing tenants earning over 80k a year have a year to buy the house or move out…. WHY on earth 5 years later has nothing been done ????

Genie6:28 pm 19 Mar 12

Some of the people in government housing do work and do the right thing, and for people like that the government should implement something like the old housing trust where they can purchase there government house, then housing can replace those homes. They also need to toughen up on things like the penaltys for damage to the homes ect.

But can we please remember that not all people in government housing are bludgers, some work probably low income but never the less they work and contribute to society. And guess what also pay taxes, so I think that some people need to get off their high horses and realize that they are not the only tax payers out there.

I also know a woman who is in a government house who has 2 children herself, one has a sever disability and needs constant care, so this woman is unable to work due to this reason, but she felt like she was not contributing to society so she started doing emergeny foster care, she has children of all ages from various situations, on a short term basis until they can be place into permanent foster care or in some cases adopted, people who contribute to society in such a special way certainly do not deserved to be called bludgers.

Supamum – No one cares about those people doing the RIGHT thing because the sad reality is that they are probably the minority. What gets on peoples nerves are the actual bludgers.. those who just rort the system to get a ‘free’ house for life. Or ‘free’ money for life.

I love my elderly neighbour, but there are 3 government houses in my street, hers included that are 3 or more bedrooms and only have 1 person living in it and yes they have all lived in their houses for more than 10 years, but there are families who need those houses. There are probably families squeezed into a 1 or 2 bedroom unit that they can simply ‘swap’. But this won’t happen because the Government won’t ‘uproot’ someone who had lived in their house for that long. Those people have to willingly give up their house. It’s just insane.

I watched a mate leave her abusive husband with her 18month old child in tow and spent the next 6 months couch surfing and living at the woman’s shelter because there was no emergency housing. 2 years later she has since moved interstate where she could afford rent and is STILL on that waiting list.

Dilandach5:20 pm 18 Mar 12

Watson said :

Genie said :

Or go work and save money like the rest of us tax payers and rent privately or buy a house.

What a novel idea?! I bet no one else has ever thought of that.

It sickens me that there are so many who think that kids should be punished for being stupid enough to being born to stupid parents.

I think it is sad that people live their whole lives on welfare. They’ve tried various stick and carrot strategies to change this and as far as I know, none of them made much of a difference. But I strongly believe that we have a responsibility to every child in our community. Unless we legalise child labour and allow them to try get out of the misery without our assistance.

They have not tried any ‘stick’ policies, they’ve just been differing sizes of ‘carrot’. A true courageous move would be to use the stick against those currently to prevent future generations from suffering. Would you condemn 10 to save 100? Or would you insist that every single one needs to be treated equally regardless of the suffering that is inflected on everyone in doing so?

Its about the larger picture and future consequences.

Watson11:06 am 18 Mar 12

Genie said :

Or go work and save money like the rest of us tax payers and rent privately or buy a house.

What a novel idea?! I bet no one else has ever thought of that.

It sickens me that there are so many who think that kids should be punished for being stupid enough to being born to stupid parents.

I think it is sad that people live their whole lives on welfare. They’ve tried various stick and carrot strategies to change this and as far as I know, none of them made much of a difference. But I strongly believe that we have a responsibility to every child in our community. Unless we legalise child labour and allow them to try get out of the misery without our assistance.

blimkybill10:57 am 18 Mar 12

Actually the couple in that article would be receiving (not earning) way more than $20k per annum. Family Tax Benefit A alone would be about $24,500 plus the large family supplement. Family Tax Benefit B would also be about $20k. Assuming the father is on Newstart he’d be gtting another $12k and the mother would be getting Parenting Payment which would be another $11k. Altogether that family is receiving at least $68,000 in welfare payments. I assume they don’t get rent assistance as they’re in public housing, but you never know.

Sure $68k isn’t a huge amount to live on with a big family, but it is substantially more that the $20k claimed in the article – presumably the journo was too thick to realise that they would be getting family payments on top of their income support.

So there you go Riot-Acters, your taxes at work.

Those figures aren’t quite right. Family Tax Benefit B is only paid once, not once per child, so the amount would be $4K not $20K. The total family income would be around $51K. i don’t know how much of that they would pay in rent. It’s still quite a lot but we should get our facts right.

Brianna10:17 am 18 Mar 12

jimbocool said :

Genie said :

Fender said :

CT has an interesting piece on the subject.
http://www.canberratimes.com.au/act-news/when-five-kids-isnt-a-crowd-20120315-1v8l6.html
Not sure what I think about it but “quality journalism” is not a word that springs to mind.

This article really gets on my nerves and I have to say what most people are thinking.
This family is crying poor because they have 5 children and are only in a 3 beddy house an earning less than $20k per annum.
.

Actually the couple in that article would be receiving (not earning) way more than $20k per annum. Family Tax Benefit A alone would be about $24,500 plus the large family supplement. Family Tax Benefit B would also be about $20k. Assuming the father is on Newstart he’d be gtting another $12k and the mother would be getting Parenting Payment which would be another $11k. Altogether that family is receiving at least $68,000 in welfare payments. I assume they don’t get rent assistance as they’re in public housing, but you never know.

Sure $68k isn’t a huge amount to live on with a big family, but it is substantially more that the $20k claimed in the article – presumably the journo was too thick to realise that they would be getting family payments on top of their income support.

So there you go Riot-Acters, your taxes at work.

So nice to know that there is someone else out there who understands and comprehends just how many dollars that family is receiving.

SnapperJack10:09 am 18 Mar 12

Looks like we’ve finally made it. Today Tonight on Thursday did a story on “the public housing scandal” where “the rich are getting priority over the poor”. They said that Canberra is the only place where public housing tenants have a house for life.

breda4:11 am 18 Mar 12

The bottom line is, the wealthiest jurisdiction in Australia has got the highest percentage of subsidised housing, for historical reasons.

People need to realise that ACT Housing’s concept of ‘market rent’ is way below what workers on low incomes have to pay because they are not on the gravy train. Getting into public housing is like winning the lottery – you never have to leave, no matter what – a luxury which even people paying mortgages, let alone private renters, do not have. If you claim to have ‘mental health’ or ‘substance abuse’ issues and turn your immediate environment into a criminal slum – bad luck for your unfortunate neighbours, who may well be battlers that deserve housing support.

Between the lowlife rorters and the middle class spongers, no wonder people in genuine need can’t get affordable housing.

As for the Greens, they continue with their unbroken record of economic illiteracy and self interest. Firstly, the notion that selected people should be subsidised to the tune of thousands of dollars a year in case something bad happens in their lives is so idiotic that one can only assume that close family or friends are involved. Secondly, they seem to think that the way forward is to promise free money to pay for their absurd schemes. Do any of them have the faintest awareness of what is happening in Europe, and why?

supamum11:39 pm 17 Mar 12

Genie said :

I think I’m inclined to agree with the people stating that if you’re already on welfare and have another child… why should the government automatically up their centrelink payments !

If I were to have a child my pay would be CUT not increased.

In all honestly, the Government needs to get out there and completely revamp all these stupid legislations that are too old and barely applicable to today’s society. They also need to spend the money hiring additional staff to review EVERY SINGLE PERSON who receives Centrelink or lives in a Government house. It shouldn’t matter if someone has lived in a house for 10-20+ years. If they got their house 20 years ago when they had 3 kids, and since then the kids have moved out, why should they be living in a 3+ beddy house. They are no longer entitled to it. They can easily be moved into something smaller.

As for the opposite.. If you got a 3 bedroom Government house 5 years ago when you were unemployed and only had 2 c
hildren and now have say 5 children.. TOUGH ! Wait your 3 1/2+ years for a swap. Or go work and save money like the rest of us tax payers and rent privately or buy a house.

Genie I agree with most of what you are saying, especially about each individual/family needing to be assed individually. I feel that the people in government housing who are doing the right thing sometimes seem to have it harder than thoes who are doing the wrong thing, that’s where individual assessments would be effective. In some cases people receiving centrelink and in government housing are finincially better off not working, because after rent increase, Childcare costs ect they would be in a similar finincial position, which is where centrelink and housing ect need to make changes, otherwise these people will not find work or change their situation. Something like ok you haven’t worked for 2 years, you have 3 months to find suitable employment or work for the dole or loose you payments.

Genie7:26 pm 17 Mar 12

I think I’m inclined to agree with the people stating that if you’re already on welfare and have another child… why should the government automatically up their centrelink payments !

If I were to have a child my pay would be CUT not increased.

In all honestly, the Government needs to get out there and completely revamp all these stupid legislations that are too old and barely applicable to today’s society. They also need to spend the money hiring additional staff to review EVERY SINGLE PERSON who receives Centrelink or lives in a Government house. It shouldn’t matter if someone has lived in a house for 10-20+ years. If they got their house 20 years ago when they had 3 kids, and since then the kids have moved out, why should they be living in a 3+ beddy house. They are no longer entitled to it. They can easily be moved into something smaller.

As for the opposite.. If you got a 3 bedroom Government house 5 years ago when you were unemployed and only had 2 children and now have say 5 children.. TOUGH ! Wait your 3 1/2+ years for a swap. Or go work and save money like the rest of us tax payers and rent privately or buy a house.

supamum2:06 pm 17 Mar 12

supamum said :

HenryBG said :

supamum said :

HenryBG said :

colourful sydney racing identity said :

If you read my previous posts you would have noticed that I agree intergenerational employment is a big problem.

I don’t know what the answer is, ,..

I do: Welfare should be provided only to those who can provide doctors’ certificates demonstrating that they are fully up-to-date with their contraceptive shots – thus ensuring no child is born into a state of welfare-dependent poverty.

Very simple.

BTW my above post refers to your comments too… But I guess you think living as an ignoramus is blissful.

Yes, how ignoramus-like of me to overlook the obvious possibility that this useless bludging couple “living on $20,000/year” have suffered 5 instances of “contraception failure”.

As far as your situation goes, it appears that you’ve chosen to have a baby with a scrounging criminal. Apparently you want a medal for it?

I noticed your comment: “Some of us are well educated, from good family’s ect. ”
Here’s a hint: people who really *are* well-educated paid attention for the full 10 minutes on the day apostrophe usage was taught and can as a result successfully use an apostrophe. People like you did whatever it is you people did in the back of the classroom in lieu of learning.

Just to clarify; I did not have a child with a criminal, that’s was in reference to someone else’s post. I am a widow. For the record, I was educated at the best private school in the state, and hold a university degree. My use of apostrophes or the lack of is a very trivial point, especially considering I am posting via an iPhone.

My point to you was in reference to the comment you made about government enforced contraceptive shots, in some circumstances pregnancy is a result of something totally uncontrolable, what do you suggest in this instance? Government inforced abortion?

I do agree that in the instance of the family with five children, that it is highly unlikely that they were all the result of contraceptive failure. I just don’t agree that mandatory contraceptive shots (there’s only one type of contraceptive administered by a “shot” or needle, and it has numerous side effects some quiet serious. There is a percentage of people who cannot use this method of contraceptive) are even an option. What about people who genuinely cannot have this “shot” mandatory hysterectomy or mandatory abortion?

I don’t know why I’m even responding as we both know it would never happen in this country.

In addition after reading your post again, my use or lack of an apostrophe is irrevelavant when you didn’t even realize that to be grammatically correct it should have been spelt families. Wonder what a person like you was doing on that day at school?

supamum11:37 am 17 Mar 12

HenryBG said :

supamum said :

HenryBG said :

colourful sydney racing identity said :

If you read my previous posts you would have noticed that I agree intergenerational employment is a big problem.

I don’t know what the answer is, ,..

I do: Welfare should be provided only to those who can provide doctors’ certificates demonstrating that they are fully up-to-date with their contraceptive shots – thus ensuring no child is born into a state of welfare-dependent poverty.

Very simple.

BTW my above post refers to your comments too… But I guess you think living as an ignoramus is blissful.

Yes, how ignoramus-like of me to overlook the obvious possibility that this useless bludging couple “living on $20,000/year” have suffered 5 instances of “contraception failure”.

As far as your situation goes, it appears that you’ve chosen to have a baby with a scrounging criminal. Apparently you want a medal for it?

I noticed your comment: “Some of us are well educated, from good family’s ect. ”
Here’s a hint: people who really *are* well-educated paid attention for the full 10 minutes on the day apostrophe usage was taught and can as a result successfully use an apostrophe. People like you did whatever it is you people did in the back of the classroom in lieu of learning.

Just to clarify; I did not have a child with a criminal, that’s was in reference to someone else’s post. I am a widow. For the record, I was educated at the best private school in the state, and hold a university degree. My use of apostrophes or the lack of is a very trivial point, especially considering I am posting via an iPhone.

My point to you was in reference to the comment you made about government enforced contraceptive shots, in some circumstances pregnancy is a result of something totally uncontrolable, what do you suggest in this instance? Government inforced abortion?

I do agree that in the instance of the family with five children, that it is highly unlikely that they were all the result of contraceptive failure. I just don’t agree that mandatory contraceptive shots (there’s only one type of contraceptive administered by a “shot” or needle, and it has numerous side effects some quiet serious. There is a percentage of people who cannot use this method of contraceptive) are even an option. What about people who genuinely cannot have this “shot” mandatory hysterectomy or mandatory abortion?

I don’t know why I’m even responding as we both know it would never happen in this country.

peterh4:26 pm 16 Mar 12

Jim Jones said :

Watson said :

EvanJames said :

jimbocool said :

Actually the couple in that article would be receiving (not earning) way more than $20k per annum. Family Tax Benefit A alone would be about $24,500 plus the large family supplement. Family Tax Benefit B would also be about $20k. Assuming the father is on Newstart he’d be gtting another $12k and the mother would be getting Parenting Payment which would be another $11k. Altogether that family is receiving at least $68,000 in welfare payments. I assume they don’t get rent assistance as they’re in public housing, but you never know.

Sure $68k isn’t a huge amount to live on with a big family, but it is substantially more that the $20k claimed in the article – presumably the journo was too thick to realise that they would be getting family payments on top of their income support.

So there you go Riot-Acters, your taxes at work.

Yep. People don’t realise the raft of family-based welfare that’s arisin over the last decade. People focus on the baby bonus, but there’s a whole shoal of other allowances and tax rebates that actaully has resulted in around 50% of wage-earning families getting more back than they actually pay in tax. That’s not welfare-dependent people like the family in this story, but wage-earners… the fabled “working familes”.

Family Tax A and/or Family Tax B will apply to even quite well-off people. Then there’s that big child care rebate, plus the back to school allowance and things like free laptops for kids. There’s others too.

I wonder what would happen if the world economy house of cards starts toppling in a serious way, and we get carried along, and the government is faced with the reality of having to means-test these handouts back to actual poor people… there’s a whole generation out there who woudln’t know how to exist without tens of thousands in government money coming to them each year.

Yes and has it occured to you that the fabled working families need that support just to keep their heads above water?

Yeah, some working families can barely manage to replace their giant plasmas every couple of years, let alone buy a new-model Falcon, take the family to Bali, or lay some more concrete down out the front of the McMansion.

It’s tough being a battler.

I am earning under 80K, paying the CSA, have the same TV I saved up for months to buy, don’t live in a McMansion, have a car that wasn’t new when I bought it, never been overseas on holiday apart from my parents sending me to fiji when I was younger.

I have lived in Ainslie village, I have slept on the street, been on the dole, am selling my house to enable my divorce to finalise and I have tried to pay back each and every person who has helped me over the years.

I am not entitled to the family tax benefits as I see my kids 1 weekend a fortnight. Am I a battler? dunno. I do know that until you have walked in my shoes, dealt with the cr@p I have been through over the years, don’t lump me in with the system cheats, the rorters.

HenryBG4:18 pm 16 Mar 12

Jim Jones said :

Watson said :

EvanJames said :

jimbocool said :

Actually the couple in that article would be receiving (not earning) way more than $20k per annum. Family Tax Benefit A alone would be about $24,500 plus the large family supplement. Family Tax Benefit B would also be about $20k. Assuming the father is on Newstart he’d be gtting another $12k and the mother would be getting Parenting Payment which would be another $11k. Altogether that family is receiving at least $68,000 in welfare payments. I assume they don’t get rent assistance as they’re in public housing, but you never know.

Sure $68k isn’t a huge amount to live on with a big family, but it is substantially more that the $20k claimed in the article – presumably the journo was too thick to realise that they would be getting family payments on top of their income support.

So there you go Riot-Acters, your taxes at work.

Yep. People don’t realise the raft of family-based welfare that’s arisin over the last decade. People focus on the baby bonus, but there’s a whole shoal of other allowances and tax rebates that actaully has resulted in around 50% of wage-earning families getting more back than they actually pay in tax. That’s not welfare-dependent people like the family in this story, but wage-earners… the fabled “working familes”.

Family Tax A and/or Family Tax B will apply to even quite well-off people. Then there’s that big child care rebate, plus the back to school allowance and things like free laptops for kids. There’s others too.

I wonder what would happen if the world economy house of cards starts toppling in a serious way, and we get carried along, and the government is faced with the reality of having to means-test these handouts back to actual poor people… there’s a whole generation out there who woudln’t know how to exist without tens of thousands in government money coming to them each year.

Yes and has it occured to you that the fabled working families need that support just to keep their heads above water?

Yeah, some working families can barely manage to replace their giant plasmas every couple of years, let alone buy a new-model Falcon, take the family to Bali, or lay some more concrete down out the front of the McMansion.

It’s tough being a battler.

You forgot to mention the 7 mobile phones owned by the “battler” household.

Jim Jones3:41 pm 16 Mar 12

Watson said :

EvanJames said :

jimbocool said :

Actually the couple in that article would be receiving (not earning) way more than $20k per annum. Family Tax Benefit A alone would be about $24,500 plus the large family supplement. Family Tax Benefit B would also be about $20k. Assuming the father is on Newstart he’d be gtting another $12k and the mother would be getting Parenting Payment which would be another $11k. Altogether that family is receiving at least $68,000 in welfare payments. I assume they don’t get rent assistance as they’re in public housing, but you never know.

Sure $68k isn’t a huge amount to live on with a big family, but it is substantially more that the $20k claimed in the article – presumably the journo was too thick to realise that they would be getting family payments on top of their income support.

So there you go Riot-Acters, your taxes at work.

Yep. People don’t realise the raft of family-based welfare that’s arisin over the last decade. People focus on the baby bonus, but there’s a whole shoal of other allowances and tax rebates that actaully has resulted in around 50% of wage-earning families getting more back than they actually pay in tax. That’s not welfare-dependent people like the family in this story, but wage-earners… the fabled “working familes”.

Family Tax A and/or Family Tax B will apply to even quite well-off people. Then there’s that big child care rebate, plus the back to school allowance and things like free laptops for kids. There’s others too.

I wonder what would happen if the world economy house of cards starts toppling in a serious way, and we get carried along, and the government is faced with the reality of having to means-test these handouts back to actual poor people… there’s a whole generation out there who woudln’t know how to exist without tens of thousands in government money coming to them each year.

Yes and has it occured to you that the fabled working families need that support just to keep their heads above water?

Yeah, some working families can barely manage to replace their giant plasmas every couple of years, let alone buy a new-model Falcon, take the family to Bali, or lay some more concrete down out the front of the McMansion.

It’s tough being a battler.

Watson3:03 pm 16 Mar 12

EvanJames said :

jimbocool said :

Actually the couple in that article would be receiving (not earning) way more than $20k per annum. Family Tax Benefit A alone would be about $24,500 plus the large family supplement. Family Tax Benefit B would also be about $20k. Assuming the father is on Newstart he’d be gtting another $12k and the mother would be getting Parenting Payment which would be another $11k. Altogether that family is receiving at least $68,000 in welfare payments. I assume they don’t get rent assistance as they’re in public housing, but you never know.

Sure $68k isn’t a huge amount to live on with a big family, but it is substantially more that the $20k claimed in the article – presumably the journo was too thick to realise that they would be getting family payments on top of their income support.

So there you go Riot-Acters, your taxes at work.

Yep. People don’t realise the raft of family-based welfare that’s arisin over the last decade. People focus on the baby bonus, but there’s a whole shoal of other allowances and tax rebates that actaully has resulted in around 50% of wage-earning families getting more back than they actually pay in tax. That’s not welfare-dependent people like the family in this story, but wage-earners… the fabled “working familes”.

Family Tax A and/or Family Tax B will apply to even quite well-off people. Then there’s that big child care rebate, plus the back to school allowance and things like free laptops for kids. There’s others too.

I wonder what would happen if the world economy house of cards starts toppling in a serious way, and we get carried along, and the government is faced with the reality of having to means-test these handouts back to actual poor people… there’s a whole generation out there who woudln’t know how to exist without tens of thousands in government money coming to them each year.

Yes and has it occured to you that the fabled working families need that support just to keep their heads above water?

All of these payments you mention are income tested except perhaps for the childcare rebate. The back to school bonus was a one-off payment back in 2009 and you do not get free laptops for kids. They are however tax deductible.

This kind of Tatcherist survival of the fittest drivel really annoys me. I feel happy to live in a society that supports people raising kids. There should be more of it.

supamum2:23 pm 16 Mar 12

As a single working mum, I am well aware of how difficult things can be, and there is one big problem with all the suggestions and answers you have all come up with. This is the fact that the whole system needs to be reviewed and possiably rewritten there will be reliefe on the housing situation unless the whole system is observed.

I currently reside in a Govt house, I work on a permanent part time basis and I have a child (under the age of 5) with special needs (not physical), I have considered working more hours to boost my income up, herein lie the problems… 1. Income goes up I will lose $0.50 in the dollar out of my parenting/carers payment. 2. I will have to pay higher childcare fees a)due to my child being in care more often and b)due to a lowered subsidy on childcare due to income increase. 3. My govt housing rent will increase. This is where the problem is I would have to work over 10 hours a week more to be less than $100 per week better off. Are we seeing the bigger picture now? Would you work over 10 hours for $100?

Second Issue with Govt housing yes some tenants are feral…. Thoese of us that are not still get thrown into the same basket… I have never had rental arrears, never had maintenance fees and my lawn is always mowed and my house is always clean and tidy, yet I ended up in a house with holes in the walls, stains all over the carpet, carpet lifted in numerous places no underlay in some areas, leaking shower, broken oven… I could go on but wont. My point here is I can understand why people on higher incomes don’t buy their Govt home anymore like people did years ago, a) theres not a financial incentive (reduced purchase price) b) a fair portion of them are like mine have been trashed (why spend $450,000 on that when you can get a house and land package for that price) It takes years to get a transfer… I would not even consider buying my house if the situation changed because its on the wrong side of town and its thrashed even though it is less than 15 years old. So I can totally understand why some people wouldn’t want to buy the property but if DHCS and the Govt let good tenants and those on higher incomes have the decent houses then just maybe these people would buy them… then the money could be reinvested into other propertys. this would also assist other problem areas like maintenance issues.. eg: newer propertys need less maintinence than older ones.

And just to all the haters out there just because we live in govt housing does not make us stupid, or bludgers… Some of us are well educated, from good family’s ect. We have just fallen on hard times or been victims or circumstance.

GardeningGirl11:24 am 16 Mar 12

johnboy said :

Have you thought what happens to the rest of us when the scum are no longer happily stoned on their couch in front of a big TV but are instead hungry, cold and out on our streets?

That does need some thought. If they’re stoned on their couch then fine. Drunk and throwing stuff at neighbours while abusing the hell out of everyone else is simply not fine.

Penalties of some sort? I don’t know.

That’s why I don’t really like the idea of simply throwing them out, but simply letting them get away with anything secure in the knowledge they can just continue that way doesn’t work either.

Genie said :

Fender said :

CT has an interesting piece on the subject.
http://www.canberratimes.com.au/act-news/when-five-kids-isnt-a-crowd-20120315-1v8l6.html
Not sure what I think about it but “quality journalism” is not a word that springs to mind.

This article really gets on my nerves and I have to say what most people are thinking.
This family is crying poor because they have 5 children and are only in a 3 beddy house an earning less than $20k per annum.
Here’s my 2 cents worth –
WHY did you have 5 kids if you can’t afford to support them?
If you’re so broke – go get a fricken job. There are tons of jobs out there ! Almost all of your children go to school. So it’s not like both parents need to be at home caring for them.

The 13 year old “can’t get no work done” because he shares a room with his 2 younger brothers. Ummm I shared a room with my sister until I was a teenager. I got plenty of homework done. It’s called do it in the kitchen or the loungeroom AWAY from the siblings.

You want a bigger house. You got yourself in this situation, did ways to get out of it instead of waiting for the Government to hand you the silver spoon you’re waiting for.

I saw that. I don’t want to judge any particular family because a blended family or multiple birth plus an unexpected job loss could put anybody in a more difficult situation than they planned for, but in general I agree. I don’t remember families that large being typical when I was growing up and anything beyond a parents bedroom and a room for the girls and a room for the boys was quite luxurious. If you want more bedrooms get a job so you can afford it, in the meantime go with the kitchen or loungeroom suggestion or why can’t one of the parents take the younger siblings outside for a ballgame or have storytelling time in another room during the older kids homework time or what about the public library, what is being done to make the situation work apart from whining for the government to provide more?

miz11:19 pm 15 Mar 12

It is simplistic to equate the numbers of ‘market rent’ payers in govt housing and the number of people on the waiting list. First, all people in public housing qualified to enter it. It is not their fault the system has become so ‘targeted’. They are probably only now earning a decent income because they were able to qualify at that time and things got stable.
Second, just because someone is earning OK money now does not mean they are going to be on OK money for the rest of their life. Plenty of people are on contract even in the public service, and ‘kicking them out’ may mean they are back on the list before long. Churn helps no one in the end.
Third, the tenants are not to blame for this problem. The two actual problems are: (a) the fact that there is just not enough public housing, and (b) the eligibility criteria has narrowed far to far.
These may seem incompatible, but actually they are both symptoms of the same policy – the dictates of the former Howard Govt to only provide tied grants to States and Territories (the housing agreement). This foolish policy started at the height of the economic rationalist fad – far less money was provided to S & Ts, and the housing agreement dictated that States and Territories must limit eligibility to welfare recipients. This did not, and still does not, make good policy, and has the effect of creating ghettos instead of decent suburbs (particularly noticeable in other States where there are large public housing clusters). Almost an entire generation of ordinary working people who previously would have been eligible for public housing are now struggling in private rental with no way out. [As a housing tenant, I understand this – I had to move 7 times in 10 years in private rental (owners wanting to sell, move back in, six months with no shower, etc) and never, ever want to go there again. Didn’t care when I was child free, but no one should have to do that with school age kids.]
OK, so we have 12-15 years of public housing supply and waiting lists to catch up on. But it is unfair to blame current public housing tenants, regardless of how much rent they pay, for this situation.
It is also worth noting that public housing tenants are similar to private rental tenants in that they can’t afford to buy a home unless a scheme such as the former Housing Trust Loan scheme is reinstated. So, it’s lose, lose.
Finally, I would like someone to tell me how much a debt-free single income household of four needs to be earning in order to have a bank agree to lend them the money (say, 95 per cent) to buy a basic three bedroom house in Canberra and be able to pay for rates etc. That would be more like the starting point at which you could perhaps consider asking people to relocate, bearing in mind the transience of some households (eg ACT Housing count teenagers’ incomes in their totals), and the fact that lots of people have considerable debts. I strongly suspect the amount needed would be more than people think.

GardeningGirl8:54 pm 15 Mar 12

marcothepolopony said :

Recently I have noticed the departure of an elderly lady who had raised her children in her three bedroom government home over the past 35 years.
Her garden was immaculate and well established; she took much pride in her little home. But she lived there alone these days, ‘time to go Mrs’.

Over the past months since the new tenant moved in the house and yard have fallen into disrepair, with overflowing bins, garbage bags all over the front “lawn”, papers and other rubbish just about everywhere you can see.
Naturally with the rain the ‘lawn’ has become an eyesore, not mown in months by the looks.

So for the neighbours of this govie who do take pride, it must have been a shock to get a new tenant with no respect for their lovely new government home. I feel for the neighbours and those, like me, who must pass by every day. It’s a mess.

That’s so sad for a number of reasons.
A block from that era would be a reasonable size. I hate to suggest it but dual occupancy? I hate the thought of the loss of an “immaculate and well established” garden but realistically not every tenant wants outdoor space for anything beyond somewhere to park the cars and let the kids run around. So building two new houses to provide accommodation for two families on the waiting list might make more sense than refurbishing an old not energy efficient house to provide a home for one family and their associated rubbish. The potential downside is having twice as much problems on the property, but the behaviour of some tenants is an issue that needs addressing anyway separate to the issue of a shortage of housing. Perhaps tenants who have shown themselves to be responsible should get first pick of newly built homes and tenants who haven’t behaved responsibly should be downgraded to smaller and older properties and pay a fee for additional inspections and the services of a mowing company until they figure out how to treat what society provides for them properly.

View more conversations

Featured Businesses

Lawyers

BDN Lawyers

BDN has provided legal services to to Canberra, Queanbeyan and the region for over 160 years.

Find out more

Lawyers

Kamy Saeedi Law

When you need a criminal or commercial lawyer, you don’t want to take any chances. You want someone in your corner that you can trust like your life depends on it - because it does.

Find out more

Community Club

Canberra Southern Cross Club

We're proud to give you a place where friends and family can come together for good food and great entertainment.

Find out more

Podiatrists

The Walking Clinic

The Walking Clinic has perpetuated an attitude of excellence in foot health provision. The experienced Podiatric team provide current and innovative care to all patients.

Find out more

Electricians

True Connection Electrical

Since 2014, True Connection Electrical have been servicing residential and small commercial clients with reliable, trustworthy and top-quality electrical work.

Find out more