There is odd commonality or relationship between those who believe employers should have total power to set workplace conditions and wages and those who don't believe in public housing. Where do poor and lower paid citizens reside when the housing and private rental market becomes unaffordable?

I am glad Australia has a social welfare safety net including housing although there are inordinately long waiting lists now in most states, some up to ten years, thanks to a frenzy of selling off public housing a few years ago. As Poirot remarks, a country littered with shanty towns, tent towns and homeless people is not good for all of us and one day given different circumstances could be any of us.

As for damages, yes the tenant should be liable but I suspect it comes down to ability to pay. If an aged pensioner is living in a flat and accidentally breaks a kitchen cupboard and the cost is $100 and it will mean going without food that week - what should housing authorities do?

Does any part of the rent paid go into an insurance fund?

I don't know how this all works but if they willfully damage property don't they get booted out same as private tennants along with also having regular inspections?

I didn't actually think they got treated very well, not informed about works about to be done on their property etc.

Public housing would greatly benefit from a rationing system whereby the social security payments for whatever purpose they are paid were limited for basic usage being housing food electricity and medical rather than a single payment that goes straight into the poker machines and alcohol
CG.

the tenant should be liable but I suspect it comes down to ability to pay.
pelican,
I've lived in Govt housing for many years & I have seen a lot of malicious damage due to parties etc. No-one ever pays for it because all the tenant has to do is not to press charges & the taxpayers foot the bill. I suppose State housing is different in many ways but it's still taxpayer funded nevertheless. Accidental damage i.e. pensioner has a mishap surely is covered by insurance.
The ability in my view should be directly linked to the ability to damage. But hey, we're starting to talk Australian Law again.

Yes Poirot, it's a strange old world when the tax payer, the one who funds these stand alone houses, has to then, after helping provide subsidized housing, pay full freight for their own rental house.

In fact, I know of a single mother, who after falling behind in her rent to the tune of $2200, was kicked out as she reneged on her arrangement to repay the back rent.

She earned just shy of $800 per week, paid $80 per week for the house, but was entitled to a three bedroom house simply because she was a single mother.

Of cause the cheap rent, about 15% of real value was just one of the many perks enjoyed as a result of having a child out of wedlock.

The entire system is up side down if you ask me.

Now while I understand your point, at what stage do we say, enough is enough.

Public housing in my view should be a stop gap, not a long term alternative to standing on ones own two feet.

This is why I say we need public housing, as opposed to (public houses.)

rehctub,

Believe it or not, I understand why you think it's unfair.

My question to you is what sort of society do you want? "State housing" areas are already prone to anti-social behaviour...but you have the example of British-style tower blocks to really understand how "anti-social" things can get.

And your proposal is to have not even flats in tower blocks, but merely "rooms".

I take it you'd be happy for society to maintain vigilance over marginalised poor and their attendant problems rather than even out the playing field to some degree.

The reason the West has done so well is because it adhered to social democracy - who wants a society like the one Dickens wrote about?