Tenancy Culture Studies: I'm interested in apathy

The Institute of Tenancy Culture Studies returns with a quick look at TISM's song "I'm interested in apathy". There's a clever irony in the title (perhaps you spotted it?) which really gives us something to think about.

In a couple of recent-ish articles about Australia's housing system, and the way it leaves first home buyers (aka tenants) behind, economist Saul Eslake has said:

"I'm surprised there isn't more anger among young people about the way in which the housing system has been rigged against them by their parents" (SMH 5/4/14)

and

"In some ways I'm surprised there isn't more anger among young people about how the housing market has advantaged older people" (AFR 27/9/14)

It's something that occurs to us as well. But are we really as relaxed and comfortable as all that?

Does Australia's housing system make you angry? Does it make you burn with resentment for those wealthy enough to buy, or at least canny enough to buy before it became impossible? Are you merely resigned to a new reality, where owning a home is little more than an aspirational flight-of-fancy for people on extravagant incomes?

Or are you simply not concerned?

In a survey we conducted earlier in the year, we asked tenants in New South Wales to tell us why they rent. 57% of our respondents said it was because they couldn't afford to buy. By comparison, 15% said they were happy to rent because it was cheaper than buying where they wanted to live.

We also asked tenants if they were satisfied with their current housing, and 68% said they were. In the same survey, 92% said they'd worry about finding another place to rent if the landlord asked them to move.

... and worry they should. Because in New South Wales your landlord can ask you to move without giving you any reason at all.

And if that doesn't make you just a little bit angry, then we don't know what will.

Real waste

The NSW State Finance Minister, Dominic Perrottet, recently wrote an article on government finances and government 'waste'. The Minister notes all manner of waste – CBD heritage buildings used as government offices, government car fleet maintenance, warehouses of paper records – but he misses the most appalling waste over which governments preside.

 (Russell Drysdale, The Deserted Town Hall)

That's the waste of leaving 219 000 persons unemployed (5.7 per cent of the New South Wales labour force) and a further 303 000 persons underemployed (6.2 per cent). Across Australia, 747 000 persons are unemployed, and 1.05 million are underemployed.

That's a big part of our labour resources not working to capacity – and in many instances, simply standing idle. And that's an appalling waste, in terms of the skills and abilities of these people; their aspirations, dignity and sense of worth; and the additional goods and services that they would otherwise have produced and made available to the rest of us.

Indeed, some of them might have the skills and ability to do office fit-outs, maintain cars, digitise paper and solve other problems that frustrate government ministers and their fellow citizens. In the area of our particular interest, some could help build houses, or repair them, or get activities going in local communities to simply make life more interesting and enjoyable.

All this may be had simply by paying them a wage. The private sector isn't doing it and won't – in fact, it can't, where it also wants to accumulate net financial assets (not to mention pay taxes).

Instead, the money to pay wages for jobs for the otherwise unemployed must come from the non-private sector – in particular, the Australian Government, which should embrace its role in eliminating the waste of idle labour by becoming the employer of last resort (or, putting it more positively, operating a Job Guarantee).

In returning for socially useful work, the Government would pay a living wage, which would thereby become the effective minimum wage in the private sector too. It would make for the economy a buffer stock of employed labour, rather than than unemployed labour, and a mechanism for stabilising wages, other prices, and the currency.

And the Australian Government would pay for this by simply crediting the bank accounts of Job Guarantee employees. The total amount spent would depend on the state of the wider economy – in a recession, when the private sector sheds jobs, the program would grow; and when the private sector is growing, rising incomes and wages would draw labour out of the program – but in any event, the amount spent would be the appropriate amount to maintain full employment. And as issuer of the Australian currency, the Australian Government can always afford whatever is for sale in Australian dollars, including unemployed labour.

The Government's role in the elimination of wasteful unemployment is occluded, however, by misconceptions about the Government and money. The Finance Minister perpetuates them when he writes:

the overarching obligation of politicians is to the taxpayers who fund us. Governments do not actually earn, own or generate any money of their own. Our funds only exist because we tax the labor and efforts of our citizens and businesses. They keep their part of the social contract by entrusting us with this money.  We need to keep ours by using it wisely. [Emphasis added.]

This does not reflect the true position of the Australian Government, and it hardly reflects that of the NSW State Government either (which does not issue currency, and which does spend monies raised by taxation, but which is nonetheless part of a federal system that has placed the power to issue currency with the Australian Government and which gets a bit less than half its funds directly from the Australian Government).

Taxpayers do not 'entrust' money to government. They give it up, more or less willing, as part of participating in an economy with a sovereign currency. Government keeps its part of the bargain by using its special role as issuer of the currency to allow all citizens to participate and contribute, through work, to the wealth of the whole community.

Vale Gough Whitlam

Gough Whitlam has died. Whitlam was Prime Minister for two abbreviated terms of government (1972-74 and 1974-75) and the greatest egalitarian reformer to hold that office.

We reviewed the Whitlam Government's achievements in housing and urban policy in our series on the centenary of public housing in New South Wales. It's extracted below.

Whitlam's most ambitious initiative was the creation of a new Department of Urban and Regional Development (DURD), conceived of as 'virtually co-equal with the Treasury', to coordinate the  allocation of urban resources by all levels of government. Under Minister Tom Uren, DURD programs included the establishment of the State land banks (Landcom in New South Wales) to better manage suburban development; funding for suburban sewerage; and the development of Area Improvement Plans that brought together and directly funded local governments to plan and work on local and regional infrastructure.

Early in its first term, the Whitlam Government also negotiated a new Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement (CSHA), which made a few notable changes to public housing policy. Whitlam had gone to the election critical of the recent decline in building activity by State public housing authorities, and promising instead to 'request each State authority to estimate the funds it will require to reduce the waiting period for houses to twelve months.' The 1973 CSHA didn't quite do that (fastforward to the present and see how far waiting lists have run out here), but it increased funding, reined in sales of public housing dwellings, and stabilised the level of construction for a time.

The new CSHA also slightly shifted the target of public housing policy. Traditionally directed at working class households, and exclusive of very poor and vulnerable persons (you could be knocked back by the Housing Commission's allocations committees if you didn't keep your current house well, or had too many children), State housing authorities were henceforth required to make not less than 80 per cent of public housing allocations to households whose incomes were not more than 80 per cent of the average. This attempted to balance responsiveness to households in need with the system's need for higher income households.

Apart from the CSHA, DURD purchased and rehabilitated old dwellings at Glebe and Woolloomooloo for public housing, and demonstrated an alternative approach to redevelopment at a time when the NSW Housing Commission was at the height of its enthusiasm for 'slum clearance' and high-rise construction. The first programs for Aboriginal housing on principles of self-determination were also commenced. And under its Australian Assistance Plan, the Whitlam Government established Regional Councils for Social Development and funded other local, non-profit organisations to employ community development workers and improve the social fabric of public housing estates and other disadvantaged areas.

Finally, the Whitlam Government initiated the first steps towards tenancy law reform, by expanding the scope of the Inquiry into Poverty (originally commissioned by the McMahon Government) to include a report, by Adrian Bradbrook, into the landlord-tenant relationship, which set out the basic model of residential tenancies legislation subsequently enacted by (with considerable differences in the details, and delays in the commencement) by the State and Territory Governments.

No subsequent Federal Government has been so active in housing and urban policy. If you live in or visit a place like Claymore (which we visited recently with IUT Secretary -General Magnus Hammar), where residents and community workers meet around a table in a community laundry to connive at ways of getting and keeping basic facilities and resources like decent houses, footpaths, parks and playgrounds, and the occasional bus-run to shops that don't rip you off, you'll see the continuing relevance of Whitlam's agenda. Both sides of politics should see that it's time for a strong and just housing and urban policy again.

We hope the remembrance of Whitlam today revitalises egalitarian principles in Australian politics and policy.

Vale Gough Whitlam.

Children in rental housing

It's NSW Children's Week 2014, and on Wednesday Australia observes Universal Children's Day. Both are occasions to 'celebrate the right of children to enjoy childhood' and to 'consider those conditions in society which affect the lives and future of our own children.'

About a quarter of all persons living in rental housing in New South Wales are children aged 14 years and younger. The rate is even higher amongst Aboriginal households: about half of all Aboriginal persons living in rental housing are children (14 years and younger).

The NSW State Government promotes NSW Children's Week and Universal Children's Day, and we'd like it to keep in mind how these children may be affected by tenancy laws.

In particular, when the government allows tenancies to be terminated without grounds, on 90 days notice (or just 30 days notice, when at the end of a fixed term), it makes the housing of children needlessly insecure.

And when, as the landlord of the State's 110 000 public housing tenancies, it thinks about 'getting tough' and evicting tenants, it should consider that they are getting tough on vulnerable children too. 

We're thinking in particular of where there's been a 'use of the premises for an illegal purpose' – most often, but not always, drug offences. Housing NSW already undertakes 'illegal use' termination proceedings, including where it means people not involved in the illegality – including kids – may lose their housing. Under the current law, you can at least ask the Tribunal not to terminate, considering the circumstances of the case (eg kids would lose their housing; court has seen fit to order non-custodial sentence; offence not actually committed by tenant), and the Tribunal will make up its own mind. 

We understand, however, that the NSW State Government is currently considering a proposal to change the law in this regard, such that when Housing NSW takes these proceedings, the Tribunal would have no choice but to terminate. This change would produce serious injustice, particularly where children and other blameless persons would be evicted into homelessness. 

Storm damage

We hope you got through the storm in one piece.

 
If you need it, you can find our storm damage factsheet here, and your local TAAS can give you further information and advice.

A thought for Anti-Poverty Week: a colleague at Homelessness NSW estimates that about 300 people would have been out in the storm last night, 'sleeping rough'.

Anti-Poverty Week 2014

It's Anti-Poverty Week, when everyone is encouraged to get a discussion going about poverty: its causes and consequences, and what we can do to do end it.

The TU will be hosting a discussion with the Federation of Community Housing Associations and other housing sector workers about social housing rent policies – including how aspects of current policies discourage work and trap social housing tenants in poverty. 

As for what you might do: what about a letter to the paper or your MP? About how speculation has changed the shape of the rental market and led to the loss of low-cost housing? Or how cutting young people's social security entitlements could damage their housing prospects, and hence their employment prospects? Or how governments don't really 'deliver' surpluses – they take surpluses, and this is incompatible with sustainable economic growth and full employment? 

There's no shortage of things to talk about....

Tools for Success (and eviction)

Women living in social housing can apply for a $5 000 scholarship to help them train for a trade, under the Tools for Success program announced this week by the NSW Department of Family and Community Services.

This is a great opportunity for social housing tenants, and a great initiative by NSW FACS.

Not so great is the fact that if a public housing tenant actually takes up the opportunity and gets a job paying more than a certain amount, Housing NSW will terminate her tenancy at the end of its fixed term.  

And even if she's not near the threshold, she might think twice about doing any overtime, because Housing NSW will take up to 55 cents in each additional dollar she earns, because of its higher rent rates for 'moderate income' earners.

The State Government is to be commended for initiatives like Tools for Success, but it hobbles these initiatives, and the efforts and aspirations of public housing tenants themselves, with policies – reviews as to continuing eligibility, and moderate income rent rates – that discourage work.

To make a success of Tools for Success, Housing NSW should abolish those policies and make it so that public housing tenants have nothing to lose from training and working.