20 January 2006

Welfare State...of another kind.

| Indi
Join the conversation
34

I don’t know whether I was fortunate or not to have had the following conversation with a long-term civil servant the other day, but this was basically how it progressed:

This guy is a third generation Canberran, who has ‘worked’ his way in a tireless and determined manner to reach the now esteemed and credible rank beyond the middle classes to Executive Level 1 (I assume that means he earns anywhere between about $70 and 95k, depending on the department).

So far this doesn’t sound all that interesting and is nothing more than listening to this guy ‘blowing ones own trumpet’ conversation that is becoming the norm in this town. I’ve noticed that people are keen early in the piece to structure their social interactions with others based on the ‘level’ they have attained in the service, regardless of ability and competency levels.

The intriuging part of the encounter was that this person has also lived in public housing for his entire life in what is now the fairly affluent and leafy suburb of Griffith…but back when he was young, only middle-ranked public servants were provided with a house in that suburb. But it turns out that this house that he occupies was also his parents home. Before that his grandparents also held a lease with the government, on fairly modest rent. Naturally he pays full rent as determined by the government because he earns a very healthy pay packet.

There is just something abnormal with the scenario here – a lease has been held by his family for a very long time, this guy is the third generation to receive, what I would see really as another form of welfare ie. a very stable long-term government income and to compliment this a government provided home. This led me to ask a generic question about what he did at work – the answer was simply, “oh, I’ve worked out over the years that if you form a comfortable relationship with the Branch Head, you can be put on special projects where you really don’t have to be accountable to anyone…I’m now very good at media monitoring as I read all the daily papers”.

After concluding the chat, I began to wonder if this is possibly not an isolated case of lets say a third generation Canberran, whose parents and grandparents were also public servants, provided with all the comforts by the State, have now come to expect the concept of ‘security of tenure’ in all its wonderous forms – ahhh, it was almost as if I could hear the gravy train, whistle blowing, departing somewhere in the distance.

Join the conversation

34
All Comments
  • All Comments
  • Website Comments
LatestOldest
Jane Hansard11:32 am 29 Jan 06

Again, back in the late 1980s there was an audit coming and a sudden mass exodus of ACT Housing staff from two and three-beddies to flats they would have been entitled to. I had a friend occupying a swish guvvie in Kingston who had to make do with a one-bedroom flat in North Lyneham from then on. She told me no fewer than 40 ACT Government employees had bent the rules for themselves and had to relocate ahead of the audit. Looks as though things have gone to custard for the ratepayers yet again since. Fresh audit needed. AND they need to fix their procedures for finding out what income Housing tenants are on. Currently they fill in a yellow form every six months. The form doesn’t actually require evidence attached, or take into account that the tenant may be on a low income only that particular week. Rorting in SPADES happening there, besides the usual cash income. I know guvvie tenants paying the minimum $40 a week – and with a garage flat out the back let out for a handy $180 cash a week! Another tenant in Griffith boasts quite openly that she turns over $2000 a week at the Kingston markets all undeclared, and pays a quarter of the pension, around $45 a week, for her $800,000 guvvie!!!! Wake up bureaucrats!

Nyssa – I’d say more Housing staff reside in public housing than you may think…I heard that there is one fairly senior manager who still resides in one, but most likely was on a lower income when an application was first made and has just simply fumbled up through the ranks.

I wonder if the Minister would believe it is a touch of ‘conflict of interest’ if you are a policy setter or managing housing stock and you still live in one!

ACT Housing won’t do anything. They never do. They espouse that it is because there are “tenant laws” protecting bad (or bludging) tenants.

However, (and I am being naive here), weren’t the tenancy laws brought in to protect good tenants from arsehole landlords?

What about the rights of those tenants (or home owners) next to disruptive ACT Housing tenants? Oh that’s right, they don’t have any rights.

It’s an “us” and “them” mentality.

Also, does anyone know how many ACT Housing staff currently reside in ACT Housing properties? I’d just like to know is all.

Jane Hansard3:35 pm 28 Jan 06

“In the old days there was this quaint idea that people could be sentimentally attached to homes and such like and that kicking them out of the house that they grew up in because their parents had died and they could afford the private rental market was a touch insensitive. Loaded Dog”

Actually security of tenure from generation to generation only came in since the 1990s. Back in 1988 artist Elizabeth Kruger was not allowed to remain in her parents’ guvvie in Hassall Street, where she was living, even though she was on a low income.
Jane

Jane Hansard3:28 pm 28 Jan 06

At least your EL1 public servant is paying rent. An art school graduate who has NEVER WORKED and has been on the dole since his Austudy ceased in 1987 is occupying a three-bedroom $600,000 guvvie in the inner north for $35 a week. He is on disability – for no apparent reason other than a taste for alcohol. He has had ONE of his teenage children to stay for a total of FIFTEEN NIGHTS in the six years he has occupied the house. NB the ratepayers are ALSO paying for same teenage children to live in another three-beddie in the next suburb – again, at subsidised rent. That’s six bedrooms for the one family.
It gets worse. He is due to inherit half the proceeds of his parents houses. Does he plan to purchase his guvvie? Not on your nellie. He says he will keep his security of tenure with ACT Housing on disability, thanks, and buy a house at the coast mortgage free. Do you think the Housing rules won’t allow that? Think again. He has checked, and now that he is in, acquiring other property won’t affect his tenure – other than increase his rent IF he rents out his coast house. He won’t be renting out the house for income, because that would affect his “disability” pension.
Tired of paying $40 a week rates? That’s where your money is going. ACT Housing are well aware of many such rorts, but won’t change the security of tenure arrangements to something a little more realistic.
Jane Hansard

I agree that any bogus “full market rent” is middle-class welfare of the worst kind. And a little bit of gouging on the Government’s behalf of those who can afford it is not a bad idea.

I consider full market rent in Canberra to be between $250 and $350 a week, with $250 being an absolute bargain.

Try buying a 3br house for 250k and you’ll see what I mean about there not being too much down in that range, nor would they obtain 10% of mortgage rent. (probably ex housing stock)

I bet my left shoe that ‘market rent’ falls quite substantially below that range however.

The problem is that there is a perceived injustice. If ‘full market’ renters were being stabbed by the Government like the rest of us, there wouldn’t be such an issue.

The question remains, why haven’t they been stabbed already by a Government that’s greedier than Scrooge McDuck, like the rest of us ?

dusty, they “won’t” do anything unless it goes to the Tenancy Tribunal – as long as they pay their rent ACT Housing won’t do a damn thing.

They could trash the house, burn it down and still be given a new one as they are current tenants.

To think that that house is for the disabled…..don’t get me started…..grrrr

There is a large 5 bedroom brick guvvie in my neighbourhood, the Inner South, complete with front and back entry ramps that is currently inhabited by fleabags, with not a physical disability in sight. Who allocates these houses? Their logic is non existent. My letters to the department, and phonecalls, regarding the current progressive trashing of this public house (refuse, fences damaged, clothesline torn down etc etc) by said fleabags while on druggy rages have gone unanswered.

loaded dog my learned friend – of course those who currently dominate the policy setting agenda in this town in relation to social services do not appear to have a balanced approach (and perhaps may never have studied public policy or researched all approaches for govts to allocate $$ to the crucial services)…and they may not have a standard dictionary that provides us all with the correct interpretation of the words ‘homelessness’ or ‘priority’

It’s bloody ridiculous!

Priority housing is now up to 12+months.

In order to get “bumped” up the queue you need a letter from your doctor, social worker etc and even then you have to wait 6months.

My cousin, who lives in Bateman’s Bay, can’t get a house up here. She has a child with a severe disability and has to make regular trips to the ACT for medical services.

The child is in a wheelchair and my cousin has other children to consider as well. Housing will “offer” her a 3br house in the ACT if they have one but she needs a 4br.

She had to quit her job to be a fulltime carer to the child with a disability (she isn’t a bludger).

Deb Foskey and this other arsehole should move the hell out of Govvie housing. There are people who TRULY need it.

FFS.

One last word, I was talking to mate who said this debate has been going on for 30 years or more and it’ll never be resolved in favour of the ‘kick the bastards out’ brigade, probably because those who decide policy in this area are aware of the whole range of issues that it raises and are immune to the falacious and vituparitive diatribes on the matter that regularly appear here and elsewhere. I hope so anyway.

On that note I bow out.

Good point Simto, and yes, ‘full market rent’ is what it sounds like, the rental value of the property compared to other similar properties in the same area, as assessed, I believe, by the Australian Valuation Office.

It strikes me as odd that three generations of this family don’t actually own a home. All that market rent over those many years could have bought that family a considerable asset. Don’t people aspire to owning their own home? Maybe they own several properties at the coast or something…

I agree with Blossy about the ‘special projects’ bit. That’s where my department keeps the grossly incompetent.

X

so why exactly does housing the poor become the gummints responsibility ?

welfare should assist in lifting people up from the gutter, not mainitaining that lifestyle.

most gummint policy is aimed at making privately owned housing attractive, hence no CGT on the family home etc. it encourages people to invest in other housing by offering negative gearing etc.

of course there will always be those who suckle from the gummint teat, but this view that the gummint always have to provide housing belongs to post ww2 uk labor and its fellow travellers.

When I first came to Canberra, over a quarter of a century ago, to work in the federal public servant, I was never told about the public housing rort – maybe it was something to do with the fact that I came from Sydney and the private sector into a ‘technical’ position at a higher level than a base grade clerk. I was a single parent with a small child, and I went into the private rental market, and saved madly working three jobs (two of which my Branch head knew about) to buy a very modest ex-guvvie. I sensed a long time ago that there is a deep, mean, and spiteful streak in many long time public servants in Canberra, who cling to knowledge as power. But hey, you know what – the suburb I bought into (the one I could only barely afford) is the one where sales are hitting the half- million mark even in the current depressed market…
r

A lot of the problem here relates to what “Full Market Rent” actually means. If it really is what the market will bear, it’s not really a problem – well off single guy pays in money, money goes out again to purchase a similar property for person 2 to go into. It’s revenue-neutral, and it works out okay.

The problem is, if “full market rent” is just a buzzword, not a genuine statement of what they’re paying, then, yeah, the system is screwed up. But I haven’t seen anybody say either way whether that’s the case.

It’s a lovely idea to let a small proportion of people enjoy their family home forever, but what about this dilemma:
1. Desperate woman with 3 children, one disabled and a aging mother to look after. Currently living in unsuitably small flat with stairs the mother can’t get down
2. Well off single guy, who’d like to stay in the government home he grew up in.
I would give number 1. family the house.
If you like, make a rule he can stay for a year.But not the rest of his life.

In the old days there was this quaint idea that people could be sentimentally attached to homes and such like and that kicking them out of the house that they grew up in because their parents had died and they could afford the private rental market was a touch insensitive.

It’s poppycock to think that such people, having been promised life long security of tenure, would have done anything to improve the property over the years, invested any hours or money in creating gardens, made a home out of a house or have any other reason (beyond the desire to cadge a bit more free money out of our overly benevolent government) for wanting to stay in the house they were born into.

Pandering to such foolish notions as these clearly leads to moral decay and has no place in the new Australia.

It’s so good to see, in the comments above, such refreshing unsentimentality abounding. How long though, after the funeral(s), should he be allowed to stay? Perhaps a month to settle affairs?

Yes – specdial projects can be where you put the spare/not very useful people. And if there are ever budget cuts those are the peopole who get made redundant first. This guy has had an easy ride, but most people in the public service have real jobs. Who would want to live like that anyway. Does he have anything interesting to talk about?

In my department, “special projects” is a name for an unimportant pretend project that merely exists so that Branch Heads and the like have somewhere out of their hair to send the inept, the troublemakers, or those who there simply don’t like.

Poor chap, stop being nasty to him, I hope his rent is truly minimal so he has a high disposable income which he spends lavishly supporting the local economy and ensuring people like me who live in the real world with a mortgage can make an income and a living. We need overpaid underworked public servants to spend vast amounts of disposable income to make the local economy WORK!!

Bugger off DT – or is it DF?

If the Government was able to sell the houses that all the people paying ‘market rent’ lived in, they’d have the money to purchase additional public housing properties and reduce the waiting lists for people who actually need it – voila, problem solved.

And there wouldn’t be bludgers like this bloke

It’s really interesting – the said public servant living in public housing is quite a good bloke, however leads the good life (probably has a fair bit of disposable income I guess). Lod – I guess he was on the tenancy agreement with his parents as soon as he was in the position to contribute paying rent and when they passed away he then, at that time, took over the lease. In fact, I don’t know whether or not that loophole still exists. It would be interesting to hear from someone in the know, as it should be closed off pronto.

Interesting that Dr Foskey is mentioned – she did have a spray in the Canberra Pravda today at Crispin Hull and strangely Richard Mulcahy about how she should still maintain some authority to speak on social housing matters, even though she claims to occupy a public housing tenancy because she believes that it is the right thing to do.

The article goes onto say however that she will be shortly taking up a private tenancy due to her daughter changing schools…

The sooner people of Dr Foskey’s ilk realise that social housing is there (now) for people in real need, the sooner it will become evident that it is an essential service that needs full govt funding and will ultimately not be able to rely on subsidies from the ‘full market renter’, nor indeed continue to maintain tenancies for said public servants that I met who CLEARLY do not need nor should maintain a house that is taxpayer funded.

As this guy has swindled and sneaked his way into this position, I’d say the Government would be hard pressed to detect this goons tom foolery. Even if processes were initiated, would they fall to, surprise surprise, his branch head?

Whether he deserves the house or not, he is paying full market rent so he’s not really a bludger. Obviously there are a hell of a lot of people who deserve public housing a hell of a lot more than he does. But the sad fact is that the whole public housing system relies on a certain number of tenants just like him, in order to subsidise the system for everyone else. The real problem is the inadequate funding of public housing in general.

I think there is rampant abuse of government housing, and inequitable allocation and unfair retention of said premises. The sooner the government addresses the problem, the better. Those who are in need can’t get one, and it seems that new public housing applications are pretty much absorbed by young single mothers. Hey I could be wrong, but thats the impression I get from speaking to eople who work there.

barking toad3:40 pm 20 Jan 06

Or maybe he could move in with foskey and they can be jointly kicked as bludging bunts (whoops, should have spellchecked) and he could perhaps get something of a life by giving her the occasional hit as punishment, that’s assuming she bats for that side – did someone mention carpet?

does this mean that he lived with his parents in said house until they ran away from him?

It seems like excitement all round, almost makes me want to cry.

*feels buttons being pushed*

And if you put a match to the house, he’d demand a new government supplied house in compensation I’d guess.

This whole concept of hereditary welfare is outright wrong. Just because my grandparents had nothing, do I deserve to live in public housing ?

According to this wanker I do.

This inequality is the uppermost embarrasing thing I can think of that this government has supported and abided, and the time is now to ruthlessly cut these leeches from the belly of the Government and watch them flounder.

Now this Government is pretty famous for the low things it does, but protecting these welfare leeches is as inexcusable as it is appalling.

Let us remember that we’ve got an economy on the brink of collapse due to our welfare budget being at a collossal 43% of GDP, and an expected increase in demand forecasted due to the retiring baby boomers placing greater stress on the welfare, health and super portfolios.

Again, I get the feeling that as a taxpayer, my taxes aren’t really being spent too wisely.

(that’s federal and territory)

barking toad3:18 pm 20 Jan 06

That’s a very sad story Indi where a bloke gets promoted to his level of inefficiency and then plods along with no further ambition, just marking time until the package is offered or lasting until retirement age. No doubt it happens in plenty of government departments and probably in most large organisations.

But what are boring prick he must be, living in public housing for a second generation with no aspiration to own a home, even buying the one he lives in, comfortable in his little cocoon and boring life. Bet that when he wears shorts he dons the work shoes with brown socks or worse, shuffles out in socks and sandals.

As for the public housing issue, his type of case, while it still irks me, differs from the foskey one.

Snout troughing members of the local council on substantial salaries and perks should not occupy public housing as a matter of principle. Especially when they have other real estate.

She should be made move in with your mate and pay board which would make him pay higher “market rent” and she should catch the bus to work with no recompense because of wasting space in the council chambers and thieving oxygen thereby contributing to green house gases!

Fuckers like this make me sick! Bloody freeloading wankers!

Great the security of tenure now extends to sexually transmitted public housing?

good stuff
we needed some more public servant/housing bashing stories around here

soon we’ll be as good as ACA or TT when all we have to do to get ratings up is run out some controvertial stories. Instead of dole cheats and dodgy plumbers it’ll be on road cyclists and public housing, yay

Daily Digest

Want the best Canberra news delivered daily? Every day we package the most popular Riotact stories and send them straight to your inbox. Sign-up now for trusted local news that will never be behind a paywall.

By submitting your email address you are agreeing to Region Group's terms and conditions and privacy policy.