I really can't see why the tax payer should be providing expensive city housing for long term [probably permanently] unemployed.

It would seem fair to me if it were a requirement for at least one of the tenants of a city house, be in full time employment in the area to qualify.

Much cheaper housing is available in many country areas, & should be used for the non-working recipients of this largesse.

One of the bunch involved in the black on black race trouble in Woodridge has now been given a house on the Gold Coast. Rather than be reward for this behavior, they should have been offered a house in Bourke, preferably very close to the police station.

If the public housing organisations availed themselves of the cheap housing available in many country areas, many more could be housed for the same investment, & perhaps some dying towns would benefit from an increase in population

My question to you is what sort of society do you want?
Poirot,
Definitely not the one we have now ! Where is the harm to ask people to put in some effort towards their own life ? I know Government policies make it extremely difficult at times to bother going on but in general no-one is entitled to demand cradle to grave mollycoddling.
It really is up to us voter to ensure we get better Government thus better conditions thus a more responsible population. How can you expect anyone to bother when they're perpetually up against those morons ?

Public housing tenants usually financially liable for damage they cause to the homes they rent.

Housing with tenants usually LandLords also financially liable for damage caused to homes they rent.

Houses funded with public monies are constructed on private corporate land.

Yet these private corporate land-owners of A* housing in SA and NT remain exempted from both tenancy laws and public housing standards.

These same private corporate landlords refuse their tenants valid leases.

Reason they give is because providing tenants with leases gives them rights... and allow these landlords to be held accountable where they responsible.

These private corporate landlords long time not held accountable for their refusal to maintain to basic housing standards in publicly funded houses.

When you build a house on some one else's block of land, they own the house - except where you have a valid lease.

Commonwealth exempts these corporate landlords from needing to issue leases.

These private corporate landlords allow their buildings to decay, become uninhabitable, fail public health standards, then scream out for more public money to fix them.


Commonwealth amended ALR(NT) so as to enable Commonwealth to go and carry out repairs to some of these houses.

Commonwealth failed to amend the ALR(NT) to make these corporate landlords to be made accountable for housing....

polpak, "Public housing tenants usually financially liable for damage they cause to the homes they rent.

Housing with tenants usually LandLords also financially liable for damage caused to homes they rent"

No, the money is often unrecoverable. The professional tenants who do the damage and refuse to pay rent know that. The provisions for eviction are heavily weighted in the tenant's favour. Check for example the ACT's tenancy regulations. The sort notice to be given by a tenant compared with the inordinately long and convoluted processes to be followed by the property owner.

Aboriginal housing SA
http://www.sa.gov.au/subject/Housing,+property+and+land/Customer+entry+points+and+contacts/Housing+SA+customer+entry+point/Waiting+list/Public+housing+options+for+Aboriginal+and+Torres+Strait+Islander+persons

polpak, "These private corporate landlords allow their buildings to decay, become uninhabitable, fail public health standards, then scream out for more public money to fix them"

I wouldn't say it was the landlords causing the decay and damage.

Poirot, sorry for the late reply, but it is simply disgraceful to think a person can be entitled to a HOUSE simply because a night out turned into a child.

It's a joke.