SOUTH AUSTRALIAN HOUSING TRUST (MISCELLANEOUS) AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 15 February 2013.)

The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY (17:10): I rise to address the South Australian Housing Trust (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill. The South Australian Housing Trust was established in 1936 to support working families and as a tool for the state government of the time to make our state an attractive investment opportunity for industry. Over time, the role of the South Australian Housing Trust has evolved to provide housing for our most vulnerable community members. The government's current policies ensure that our housing assets continue to be targeted to South Australians most in need.

The Department for Communities and Social Inclusion is often viewed as the last resort for many disadvantaged households, including people who are homeless or at risk of homelessness, many of whom have complex needs. Essentially, it is seen as a benevolent landlord. Just as an example, the department considers a range of support options and opportunities to modify tenant behaviour prior to seeking the eviction of tenants with complex needs.

Also, Housing SA has a memorandum of understanding with South Australia Police, which facilitates the exchange of information relating to alleged illegal activities on its properties. However, an individual's criminal record constitutes highly sensitive and personal information, and there is little reason this should be available to Housing SA, unless it relates to activity that has occurred on or in one of Housing SA's properties.

I turn now to the matter of tenant incarceration. If a Housing SA tenant is incarcerated, the tenancy can be retained for up to three months if the property is unoccupied or for up to six months with an approved caretaker. If the tenant is incarcerated for a longer period, Housing SA will take action through the Residential Tenancies Tribunal to terminate the tenancy and to re-let the property.

As I mentioned earlier, Housing SA's disruptive behaviour policy and procedures provide a framework which uses a range of early intervention and prevention strategies to assist tenants to successfully maintain tenancies. Both verbal and written warnings are provided to tenants, depending on the severity of their breaches. Housing SA also offers support and mediation to resolve any substantiated issues as they occur. In fact, the vast majority of Housing SA's tenants have no substantiated complaints recorded against them.

On the issue of rental rates, South Australian Housing Trust rents are already set at an affordable rate of 25 per cent of gross assessable household income. The proposal that South Australian Housing Trust rents should be fixed and varied by regulation would not necessarily achieve a more affordable rent structure and would be more administratively cumbersome. Rents for high-need and vulnerable clients in community housing are currently subsidised through the provision of government funding in the form of properties.

Removal of Housing SA's ability to determine and approve community housing rents would mean that there would be no mechanism to ensure that rent subsidies were passed on to the tenant and not simply retained by the non-government organisation and not misused, given the potential risk for tenant-managed organisations to set rents so as to obtain a direct pecuniary interest.

In relation to the matter of water meter installation schemes, the Minister for Social Housing acknowledges that separate meters are the only means of achieving absolute equity in water usage. However, considering the potential level of recoveries and the capital expenditure involved in a metering program across some 18,000 tenancies, this cannot be justified. I do not anticipate SA Water would be amenable to bearing this large unforeseen cost.

Housing SA does provide some funding for the separation of water services in instances where it is identified that there is a large disparity in the types of households and their water usage. In such cases, properties can be provided with individual flow meters or, alternatively, conversion to their own dedicated meter. These cases aside, it is worth noting that both the Ombudsman and ESCOSA recently looked at the way Housing SA charges on shared water meter sites. Each concluded, in the absence of individual meters, that Housing SA's 30 per cent landlord rebate was a fair and reasonable compromise for the large majority of tenancies.

In summary, many elements of the South Australian Housing Trust (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill 2012, as introduced by the Hon. Robert Brokenshire, are covered. The Hon. Mr Brokenshire spends a lot of time sitting on his tractor thinking his deep thoughts. Obviously, this is another one of those thought bubbles that he comes up with, as most of the things contained in the bill are currently covered by existing policies and practices of the Department for Communities and Social Inclusion. It is for that reason that the government opposes the bill.

The Hon. T.J. STEPHENS (17:16): I rise on behalf of the opposition to indicate our support for the second reading of this bill. There are aspects of the Hon. Robert Brokenshire's bill that the opposition wholeheartedly agrees with and there are other aspects where, whilst we may agree in principle, there may be some unintended consequences that need to be thrashed out. We will work with the Hon. Robert Brokenshire and his party over the next short period of time to try to reach a landing on some of those issues. I will say from the outset that one of the first inquiries I sat on with the Statutory Authorities Review Committee was into disruptive tenants.

The Hon. R.L. Brokenshire: It was a long time ago.

The Hon. T.J. STEPHENS: It was a long time ago and it was distressing, at the very least, to listen to many genuine people who had the comfort and reasonable peace and quiet of their lives interrupted by tenants who did not respect the privilege that they had (and have) of public housing. Like all members, I want to see those vulnerable members of our community looked after and I think it is fantastic that public housing is something that the people of South Australia can provide. However, I personally think that public housing is a privilege that should not be abused.

As soon as you throw in the words 'a basic right', people think that they can have public housing and they do not have to give any consideration to the privilege that it is to have public housing. Many good people, many senior people—people who should be able to live out their lives in some form of peace—deserve not to have people who do not respect the privilege that they have of public housing. Among the abuses that we heard about, there were sad cases of people being put into public housing who I suspect should well have been in secure mental facilities or institutions.

We went through this period decades ago where it became quite sexy for governments of perhaps all persuasions to put people from institutions out into the public arena, into public housing, obviously with supports. However, those supports have turned out to be lacking. So you will find that, in good streets, where people have been good public housing tenants for decades, communities of people have had people put in the middle of them who are totally unsuitable. Quite frankly, they probably should have been institutionalised. They were placed there without the supports that they certainly needed. It was one of the most distressing inquiries that I have sat through.

The Hon. Bob Sneath, former President, shared those concerns. Shoulder to shoulder, we were quite strong on our reporting of the fact that people should participate in public housing with respect for others and those around them, and at no stage do the Liberal Party ever want to back away from that.

The three strikes policy we thought was a fair and reasonable policy at the time; anybody can make a mistake or transgress and, with the right counselling and guidance, should be able to get their lives back on track. But, when the quiet and comfort of the lives of people around them were being destroyed—certainly the Hon. Bob Sneath at the time, myself and the Hon. Caroline Schaefer (and I think the Hon. Nick Xenophon sat on that committee as well)—we were as one with regard to the fact that people should not have to put up with that.

I am pleased that the Hon. Robert Brokenshire has brought this issue again to the fore. As I said, there are some parts of the Hon. Robert Brokenshire's bill which, whilst we understand the intent of it and probably support it, we really need to put some more work into it to perhaps try to tweak it, and we will do that over the next period of time. However, with those few words, I indicate the opposition supports the second reading of the bill.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE (17:21): I thank all honourable members for their contribution. I place on the public record that what the Hon. Russell Wortley has just placed in Hansard in favour of the government is a load of nonsense.

The Hon. A. Bressington: Maybe he should sit on a tractor once in a while.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: Exactly, as the Hon. Ann Bressington said, maybe the Premier needs a tractor to sit on and to think about a few of these things, because he—

The Hon. R.P. Wortley interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: Order! The Hon. Mr Brokenshire, you have the call and the numbers.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: Good thought bubbles are of benefit. To get back to the point, the reality is that the now Premier, when minister, made a commitment to address the issue of 'three strikes and you're out'. That is only in a code and it is soft. I am not sure that anyone has had three strikes and is out—I cannot establish that there has been any. Shared water meters were going to be fixed. They are two examples, and neither have been fixed. Having said that, I am very happy to see what the thoughts are and where the parliament sits with respect to the second reading. I thank the Hon. Terry Stephens for his contribution and I advise the house that Family First would be prepared in committee at some point in the future to take on board any further amendment from any members in this chamber. I commend the bill to the house.

Bill read a second time.