AKA, you need to test your assertions about housing. i am not sure if your post was about my post, but here goes anyway.

Firstly, in the former model I discussed the Government didn't get any funds at all - somebody else did, but they didn't maintain the housing they owned. The houses were, indeed, gifted free to the owner.

Secondly, public housing charges a percentage of income of the tenants. Rarely are all the people in these houses tenants (that's the point) and humbug is rife. If the ten people include children of couse they are not gettng income so no percenage would apply. So the simplistic 10 x $25 simply doesn't hold true. It is more likely to be a percentage of income of he nominated tenants. I would be surprised if 10 adults were in fact paying.

thirdly. Most public authorities allow for remissions for below standard houses.

Indeed, if there were land tenure reforms these people could actually buy/leaseback or rent buy alternative housing. Just as importantly, if NT housing is responsible, and people are paying rent, then they shoudl be held to account.

We need to stop making excuses as the Minister in the ABC story is. He is part of the Executive of his own Government. He could stop it tomorrow if he wanted to (they are a minoity Government) - but he plays the victim card and grandstands instead while his Government waste $700 million per year in extra GST they get specifically in respect of Indigenous disadvantage even before the lions share of the ARIA housing funds.