Page 483 - Week 02 - Thursday, 25 February 1993
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
The third point is: How can any rental organisation spend 39.5 per cent or $16m of its income in 1990-91 on maintenance - incidentally exceeding its budget by a massive 28.6 per cent - and do even better in 1991-92, spending $20.5m or 48.3 per cent of income on maintenance? South Australia spends 15 per cent and New South Wales 27 per cent. How can anyone spend almost 50 per cent of income on maintenance and then try to justify it, firstly, by claiming that the figure represents only 2 per cent of stock value, which puts the value of stock at $1 billion; and, secondly, by claiming that the percentage was not almost 50 per cent on maintenance but only 25 per cent because revenue was really $84m, not $42m?
How can anyone base their maintenance expenditure on the value of stock? Stock value fluctuates and, in any event, is worth nothing until realised. As for the claim that maintenance is really only 25 per cent, the basis for this creative accounting is that trust revenue really should be $84m if they had not given a 50 per cent rebate to most tenants. Leaving aside the fact that they cannot even collect most of the rebated rents that are due, how can one make such an absurd defence by basing the percentage on a "might have been" level of rent?
Whatever excuses may be put forward, the fact is that almost 50 per cent of income is expended upon maintenance, yet there is no routine inspection of trust houses, as we know from the Estimates Committee hearings. Because there is no routine inspection, how does the trust ascertain accurately what is fair wear and tear and what is wilful damage? The latter is levied against the tenant, we hope. Further, with no routine inspection, how do we know that the total maintenance costs are not much larger than they need to be, because of longer-term neglect, than is necessary or than is warranted? We do not know the reasons for these staggering amounts or these strange procedures, but again an inquiry would find out.
The fourth point is: Why do so many people have criticisms of the Housing Trust in relation to the rorting of the system? Some examples are de factos in full employment, employed spouses returning to live on the premises or improved financial circumstances after tenants have been granted rental rebate. What about families moving in with pensioner parents to get the benefit of the concessions that those parents enjoy? What about people being allocated three- and four-bedroom properties to which they are not entitled? What about animals in flats and widespread allegations of criminal activities, such as drug dealing?
Why are decent, law-abiding tenants living in fear of a minority of tenants in Housing Trust properties? Why, when action is sought against such troublemakers, does the trust argue that to move the troublemakers would simply "transfer the problem elsewhere"? Why are tenants denied the option of moving into private rental accommodation where rent relief of $48 per week is cheaper for the taxpayers than the concessions through Housing Trust accommodation? Why is information "not recorded" for ex-prisoners who might have been ACT residents before serving their sentence and then again might not, so they are in fact jumping the current 8,000-applicant waiting list?
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .