According to the ABS, in 2011, Tasmania had approximately 32,494 unoccupied dwellings of which 8,350 were in the Statistical area of Hobart . In 2012, the Tasmanian Residential Tenancy Act was subject to review. In April 2013, the Residential Tenancy Act was amended and is now awaiting Legislative Council consideration.
Subsection (1)(da)(ii) of the Residential Tenancy Amendment Bill 2013 will allow for the eviction of public housing tenants when an undefined tenant or household income/asset threshold is reached. The threshold was originally defined in the Bill as $35,000 for assets and $66,000 for a household income. These figures were since removed by way of amendment and it is now proposed that the Government will determine the threshold through regulation. The changes were passed in Tasmania’s Lower House on the 10th of April 2013.
The aspects of the legislation relating to income and asset tests have been proposed and defended by the Housing Minister, and Greens Cabinet member, Cassy O’Connor.
There are some fundamental questions in relation to the Greens pursuit of these amendments that must be answered.
1. What justification is provided to suggest that Public Housing properties are occupied by people that are wealthy enough to either purchase their own home or enter the private rental market? These are the only other options for current and prospective tenants.
2. Some people within public housing have mental and or physical disabilities that preclude them from paid employment. In these circumstances what is determined as a fair and just amount of ‘assets’ that such people can own? This question needs to be considered in the context of a 0% ability to obtain a bank loan and very little likelihood of being able to enter the private rental market due to unemployment and social stigma.
3. Decades ago, the government closed down institutions that for better or worse at least provided shelter and some level of support for those with such disabilities – now they are often unsupported other than with, for example, public housing in which to live. Why are the Greens pursuing legislative changes that threaten these people with eviction on the basis of having a small amount of assets which may have taken them a lifetime to acquire?
4. Have the Greens given any consideration to the perverse outcomes associated with the amendments? Those who are fortunate enough to gain paid employment better be careful not to earn or acquire too many assets because to do so will be to threaten their tenancy. Is this a fair and just proposition?
5. What evidence was considered to justify that homelessness within Tasmania is a result of a shortage of available housing? This must have formed the basis of the proposed amendments on the rationale that it will provide for those most in need, ie. the homeless. This is particularly important in light of the high rates of vacancy of residential properties within Tasmania (14.4% in 2011). This would suggest that the issue is more to do with affordability and a preference of landlords to avoid renting to poor people than a shortage of housing.
6. Have the Greens considered the extent of the anxiety caused to current and prospective tenants by legislating for potential evictions based upon an unspecified income / asset test?
Unless there is evidence demonstrating the number of public housing tenants that are considered too wealthy then I fail to understand the reason for the Greens engaging in what appears to be a battle against public housing tenants.
Finally, why don’t the Greens propose a legislative threshold for the level of rent that a landlord can charge a tenant based upon the income of the landlord?
Answer: because in politics you always look after your own.
Australian Bureau of Statistics http://www.censusdata.abs.gov.au/census_services/getproduct/census/2011/quickstat/6?opendocument&navpos=220
