The " protected tenant ".

There is no doubt that we are seeing an emerging housing crisis. Home ownership is slipping away from the reach of many - and rents are going through the roof as the supply of rental properties dwindles.
In recent days there have been alarming noises coming from Kevin Rudd's side of politics promising that if elected measures will be taken to protect the disadvantaged.
The nature of these measures has not been disclosed, but one possible aspect will certainly send a chill through the heart of any property owner. It could be that a socialist government would seek to reintroduce the concept of " the protected tenant ".
Back in the dark days of world war two a similar shortage of rental properties emerged. The government of the day could see a problem. Low income families could not afford soaring rents and there was the prospect of such people being evicted and replaced with the more affluent.
To counter this, the government instituted a rent freeze in the form of what it called " protected tenants ". The criteria covered those who had rented their property for a long period of time and were low income people. It was a war time measure - but was enacted without a sunset clause.
After the end of the war the issue of " protected tenants " became a political minefield that neither side of politics dared to engage - and so for decades we had the situation of smug protected tenants still paying rents frozen at levels of the 1940's - but enjoying the use of properties that would command rentals of much higher value in an era of increased prosperity and inflation.
The losers were the property owners. It was impossible to increase rents above the 1940's frozen levels or evict their tenants - but they were responsible for paying the rates and maintaining the property. Should a hot water service need replacing or a sewer attention to remove a blockage the owner had to foot the bill.
The crazy situation arose that owners were out of pocket by huge amounts a year in relation to the meagre rents that they were allowed. They could only reclaim their property if the person renting died - or failed to pay their rent - and protected tenants were very careful to never fall into arrears.
The property was virtually worthless. Nobody would buy while a protected tenant was in residence - except those willing to buy it for a song and wait out the longevity of the occupier.
It would be all too easy for a socialist government to revisit protected tenancies if the rental situation deteriorated. Basically, it would be a way of dumping public housing onto private enterprise - but surely the lessons learned after the last experience should preclude that course of action.
But - then again - those who ignore history are destined to repeat it !