Anglicare is opposed to the transfer of titles of Tasmanian public housing properties

The State Government today announced an Expression of Interest process for transferring the titles of 500 Housing Tasmania properties to community service providers.

“More affordable housing is needed in our state but giving away public assets is not the answer,” said Meg Webb, manager of Anglicare’s Social Action and Research Centre. “Public housing is a core government service and should remain so.

“We are also concerned that the modelling on which this decision is based has not been made publicly available,” she said. “There are no guarantees that this will deliver the promised benefits and we are concerned that longterm, the state may regret the loss of these assets”.

Ms Webb called on the Government to detail how the transfer program would be evaluated and on what criteria future decisions about its extension would be made.

Tasmania has a significant housing debt to the Commonwealth. This means that half of the Federal funding received each year is returned in debt repayment. “If we transfer the titles of Housing Tasmania stock, this debt will still need to be paid but the state will be left with a much reduced public asset,” said Ms Webb.

Community service organisations currently play a valuable role in the management of a number of public housing properties in the state. “However, this work can continue without the need to transfer titles,” said Ms Webb. “By giving community service providers long-term management tenure, the rental income stream from the properties can provide leverage for investment in affordable housing”.

• John Biggs in Comments: “More affordable housing is needed in our state but giving away public assets is not the answer,” said Meg Webb, manager of Anglicare’s Social Action and Research Centre. Do I understand this correctly: Is the government actually giving away public assets that are currently used for housing the poor? And are the recipients then making money out of the gifts? If that is so, and this is how it reads, then it is nothing but out and out corruption: theft of public property so private individuals benefit. And what about those who have lost their homes? Can some one tell if and where this is incorrect?

• Rebecca White: Criticism of Petrusma’s privatisation plan grows