Legislative Assembly

15516 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Wednesday 27 June 2001 ______ Mr Speaker (The Hon. John Henry Murray) took the chair at 10.00 a.m. Mr Speaker offered the Prayer. BILLS RETURNED The following bills were returned from the Legislative Council without amendment: Corporations (Administrative Actions) Bill Corporations (Consequential Amendments) Bill Corporations (Ancillary Provisions) Bill HOUSING BILL Second Reading Debate resumed from 22 June. Mr HUMPHERSON (Davidson) [10.02 a.m.]: I lead for the Opposition on the Housing Bill. I will elaborate the Opposition's views on aspects of this bill. The bill proposes to consolidate the existing three Housing Acts into one Act. The objectives of the bill are to continue and expand the functions of the New South Wales Land and Housing Corporation, to merge the Home Purchase Assistance Authority into the corporation, and to dissolve the HomeFund Advisory Panel. The Opposition understands and appreciates those objectives and does not have any deep concerns about them. The revamped Land and Housing Corporation will have slightly redefined primary roles. Those primary roles will be to: provide public housing, including the provision of rental rebates; acquire and/or develop land for urban development or public purposes; make residential land available; promote orderly and economic urban development; manage the Home Purchase Assistance Schemes; and to act jointly or independently in providing housing and/or land, including to act as Landcom or as the Land and Housing Corporation. I understand that there are two primary changes in the bill. I thank the Minister for the time given to the Opposition to discuss those matters with his staff. The two issues that the bill seeks to change are tenant fraud and partnerships with the non-government sector. The Opposition does not have deep concerns over these two issues. However, the bill is intended as a clean-up and tidy-up bill, and there are two other elements that need to be reviewed. I would appreciate the Minister's response to those two concerns and, subject to that response, the Opposition will determine what it will do. The Opposition will not move amendments, divide or oppose the bill in this Chamber. If it were to move amendments and divide, it would be in the Legislative Council. It will depend on the nature of the information given to the Opposition. The Minister in his second reading speech acknowledges that between five and ten per cent of tenants—potentially more—deliberately or inadvertently may be abusing the privilege of accommodation that taxpayers have given to them. Changes are necessary to give greater powers to the department. There needs to be a greater intent, even under the current powers, to pursue tenants who abuse the privileges given to them. Quite simply, the waiting list of just under 100,000 people in New South Wales is the lowest proportion of tenant turnover in public housing in Australia. This indicates that review is not as effective and rigorous as it ought to be. The Opposition believes that the review should be more rigorous, not just in respect of the income of those people in public housing, but of the people who move into those tenancies and do not disclose their incomes. The Government has identified that aspect in the Minister's second reading speech as one that it is interested in pursuing and the Opposition thoroughly supports that intent. Evident in reports that the Opposition receives through its housing hotline is that there are genuine tenants on that waiting list of 98,000. Also clear from that hotline is that people are abusing the system and they ought not to be given solace or wide latitude but should be dealt with firmly, with allegations of abuse investigated and evidence pursued. Some tenants may not only abuse tenure; they may vandalise their properties, for example, commit arson. Moreover, some people engage in extraordinary levels of anti-social 27 June 2001 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 15517 behaviour, which impacts severely on neighbours and nearby residents in publicly provided housing. They should not be dealt with lightly. Quite simply people who engage in anti-social behaviour to that extent should be dealt with sooner by permanent eviction. Numerous examples have been brought to our attention in relation to the Casino area. Problem tenants in that area are simply moved to another area in the same region and, given their previous track record, they will repeat their practice and will continue to cause great disturbance. That not only imposes costs and resource demands on the department and the Police Service, but it causes great distress to those nearby, particularly elderly residents. These people should not be given wide latitude. The new powers proposed in the bill predominantly focus on the ability to demand income details on other tenants within a tenancy. We support that change. The Opposition is aware of examples in which the primary tenant has a partner, relative or person with a business interest, other property interests or undisclosed income who is also living in public housing. That is a clear breach of the intent of public housing and prevents those who need public housing from accessing it. The Opposition supports any changes that will improve the problems of fraud and abuse in the public housing system. I shall give another example. A tenant and her partner have public housing property at 5/2 Ivanhoe Place, Macquarie Park. Since the beginning of this year, she has rented the property to another private tenant and she and her partner now live on the Northern Beaches in a friend's home. They derive income from an illegal rental, and that is in breach of the tenancy agreement and the principle of taxpayers providing public housing. The woman and her partner work full time. Her car remains in the garage of unit 5 but she rents the garage of unit 2 from another public housing tenant, to store furniture and homeware. The Minister should investigate that example, because sadly it occurs far too often. People in public housing should acknowledge that if their circumstances change, they should inform the department and move on. They should think again before abusing their privileges. Another example relates to the public housing tenants of 4/1 Eyles Street, Telopea, a couple who travel overseas for the best part of the year, mainly in the Middle East where they have family and property interests. They appear to use the residence at Telopea only as a place to stay during summer in Australia. Another example is the public housing tenant of 4/9 Lascelles Street, Narraweena, who has moved to Taree where the family owns a property, yet her daughter still resides at the Narraweena property in a three-bedroom townhouse. The daughter is not a legitimate tenant and, as a single person, ought not to be living in a three-bedroom townhouse when needy families require that accommodation. The department has been trying to address these matters but needs more authority and power to do so. It is important that the department has flexibility to accommodate different tenants in the same neighbourhood. A further example is a couple who have allegedly lived for 16 months in unit 7, 11-15 Smith Street, Wentworthville. They retain the tenancy but live elsewhere, only returning to collect their mail. Many people are desperately waiting for public housing and they should have priority, not those who do not have a genuine need. No honourable member would disagree with that comment. The Minister should investigate the examples I have given and if tenants are ineligible and are abusing the system, they should be refused public housing. The second primary area of change in the bill relates to partnerships and the provision of housing in partnership or joint ventures with the non-government sector. The Opposition supports that change whether it is with local government, non-government organisations or the private sector. We are keen to use all reasonable means possible to provide a range of housing and locations to suit the great diversity of people who need access to public housing. The changes to the Act will extend the options available to the department to enter into various forms of joint ventures, particularly using non-government land, and the Opposition supports that flexibility. The Parliamentary Secretary said in his second reading speech that the driving force was cuts to Federal Government funding. That is a complete misnomer. That was only a 1 per cent or $3 million efficiency cut in Federal funding to New South Wales, and to other States in recent years. It is insignificant compared to the broader $500 million gross budget for the Department of Housing. When one looks at the track record of the Government over the past six or seven years a $3 million cut is no explanation for the fact that in 1994-95 approximately 2,800 homes were built to provide public and community housing in New South Wales, yet that figure has now dropped to 1,100 or 1,200. It is unexplained by a reduction of 1 per cent in Federal Government funding; rather, it is a diversion of funding by this Government into other purposes. The housing available in New South Wales has diminished substantially, as has the number of homes being sold. Public housing may be sold where the demand no longer exists or the market rental is equivalent to that paid to access public housing. During 1999-2000 the number of properties sold by the Government was 880 15518 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 27 June 2001 compared to 300 homes sold in 1994-95, the year before the Carr Labor Government came to office.

Load more