The " Public Tenant " Problem !

It is a sad fact of life that some New South Wales Housing Commission tenants are so destructive that when they finally vacate the dwelling is simply "unliveable "  without major repairs, and this is costing the state over twelve million dollars a year.

The new Community Services Minister is thinking of imposing a bond as an incentive for good behaviour.   It works well in the private rental sector and tenants know that if they do damage the repair of that damage will come from their bond. Unfortunately, there is a wide gap between public and private rental market options.

There is a long waiting list for public housing and yet in many cases "emergency housing " jumps the queue and takes preference.   It is unlikely that many public housing tenants will have the savings available to pay a substantial bond and so it is proposed that their early rental be increased to allow a bond to accumulate.

That has distinct possibilities.  In fact those nearing the top of the list could be expected to start building a bond deposit by paying into a bond fund in anticipation of getting housed.  Public housing rents are pegged to a proportion of earnings, hence this comes into conflict with a rent increase to serve towards a bond.    That is not a problem in the private sector because there are more prospective tenants than available housing and those lacking the money for a bond are automatically excluded.

This idea of a housing bond will certainly come into conflict with left wing thinking on the obligation of the state to house low income earners, but  "public housing "does come with principles.  There is an obligation that tenants will take care of public property and the present arrangement lets them walk away without penalty even if they leave their rental home a total wreck.   As the private rental market illustrates, having a substantial sum of bond money held in trust is a powerful incentive to be careful to avoid damage.

Perhaps the greatest opportunity to prevent damage would be to install a regular inspection regime, coupled with a shorter and sharper process of evicting those breaking the tenancy rules.   The present  system is slow and tedious and open to endless appeals.   There is no legitimate reason that public housing should be lax in enforcing the rules that apply - and in many cases a "bad tenant " imposes an intolerable threat to all those living nearby.

Most reasonable people react in compliance with firm boundaries.   Gaining possession of a housing commission home is itself a reward to be cherished and the vast majority are good tenants.  It is a small minority that cause the most trouble - and this can have many causes.   In some cases a marital breakup can cause an alcohol or drug problem and in others unwanted family members force entry and overload the facilities.   Out of control children reaching adulthood and forming gangs can terrorise a neighbourhood - and a surplus of cars seeking parking space is often a point of friction.

Installing a bond regime is a good idea, but an even better solution is to tighten the process of withdrawing public housing from those who flout the rules.   The fear of a very quick eviction would go a long way to installing good order in the public housing sector.