Despite widespread public concern, Premier Newman has confirmed that funding will not be reinstated by his government. His plan is to divert funding from the 22 tenant advice services to the provision of public housing in Queensland. He says, ‘We stand by our decision to redirect funds to putting a roof over the heads of Queensland's most vulnerable people. That is our priority’. By posing such a choice, the Premier would have us believe the closure of a service that helps vulnerable people will actually help them. But it seems most people are wise to this political parlour trick. As TUQ says, this is just a ‘false dichotomy’. In my view, justifying a funding cut by using the plight of homeless people is unethical if not downright bloody scandalous.
Tenancy services have hit back saying the provision of advice and advocacy services help keep vulnerable persons off the streets. A campaigner says, ‘These services reduce homelessness and help to keep people housed, retain people's self-sufficiency in the private rental market and keep them off the social housing wait list’.
Ms Miller, the Shadow Housing Minister, supports the campaign to reinstate funding. This is what she has to say - ‘Without TAAS providers in Queensland we will see an increase in disputes and court proceedings between tenants and landlords and an ultimately an increase in homelessness in Queensland’.
At the Commonwealth level, the Gillard Labor Government is baffled by Newman Government’s decision. The Housing Minister, Mr Butler says, ‘The most effective way to reduce homelessness is to prevent people becoming homeless in the first place and services such as these help to do exactly that...we want a prevention based approach but the Newman Government seems intent on playing politics instead of policy’.
I would agree with these sentiments. The causal link seems pretty obvious to me. But Premier Campbell Newman has taken the view, ‘There is no evidence to suggest TAAS is preventing homelessness. In fact, between 2009 and 2012, the number of households on the waiting list considered to be homeless or at risk of homelessness increased by 80%.’
I would suggest that he is taking a very general statistic and using it out of context. There is no doubt homelessness is a very complex issue. If he wants to use statistics as a weapon, he should rely on specific statistics tied to the provision of tenant services. That raises another issue. Prior to the funding cuts, did the tenant advice and advocacy services have enough funding to produce detailed statistics about their operations? As a side note, if these services are constrained by confidentiality agreements, the public has a right to know. It is in the public interest to have access to all the necessary information to form a political view on this issue.
And just because there is no or limited evidence doesn’t mean something isn’t true. If I tell my boyfriend I have a headache, he can’t exactly prove it. Academics don't pay a lot of attention to tenancy laws. Just because it has been overlooked doesn’t mean the law adequately deals with drop kick landlords.
Premier Newman seems to have taken a bit of a legal approach with his reference to evidence. He has opened the door so let’s see how this plays out. If this was being determined in a court of law, a judge could hear evidence from both sides. One thing a judge can hear is expert evidence. There is no doubt the indomitable Penny Carr from TUQ would be considered an expert witness. She is able to provide a very specific and credible example of how tenant services help people at risk of becoming homeless.
She says, ‘[One woman with a disability] was told by the real estate agent that she was in rent arrears. There were some circumstances that were beyond her control. She was being taken to the tribunal for a warrant of possession. She was advised how to respond and how she might save herself from being evicted so she went to the tribunal well armed and well organised and managed not to get evicted and the rent arrears were rectified and she was able to stay in that property until the end of the fixed term agreement’. So not only do we have evidence, but damn good logic.
Still on shaky ground, Premier Newman tries to justify his decision on the ground there is a duplication of services. He says, ‘The services provided by TAAS are already available through government agencies like the RTA and through government programs like RentConnect’. There is a pretty big difference between advice and information. Who will go into bat for tenants when the shit hits the fan? TUQ observes ‘They will lose access to face to face services in their communities, they will have no one to review their documents, help them prepare for tribunal hearings or advocate for them to their lessor or agent. The RTA does none of these things and nor can they as they must remain impartial’.
But the Premier’s team says, ‘The RTA already processes more than three times the number of tenant inquiries as all TAAS providers combined. The RTA will continue to provide renters with free information about their rights on issues like rent disputes, property repairs, entry and privacy and getting a bond refund. They also provide a free conciliation service to help tenants and landlords resolve disputes’.
And please tell me how conciliation is any good when dirt bag landlords break the law and do what they want. In no way shape or form, has the Premier’s team engaged with practical issues on the ground that work to prevent access to justice. Their treatment is just superficial. This is about people, not politics.
Premier Newman also thinks some community organisations provide tenancy advice and advocacy. But he is unable to provide information about the identity of these organisations and the nature of the services they provide.
From the start, the campaign to save tenant services has emphasised that the funding for tenant services comes from interest derived from bonds put up by tenants. As I understand it, less than 15% goes towards the funding of the tenant services in Queensland. This is a fairly minimal amount for what all the State and Territory governments (except the Newman Government, of course) agree is an important government responsibility.
One bemused voter observes, ‘I don't understand how the funding that would have been put into TAAS is really going to make much of a dent in the amount of money needed to properly deal with the issue of adequate social housing’.
But Premier Newman has taken the position that what he is doing is legal and therefore defensible. It might be legal, but in my view, probably not moral. The Premier’s team says, ‘It is not correct to suggest that the interest earned on tenant bonds, some of which previously funded TAAS, is somehow tenants’ money...Under the Act, interest earned on tenant bonds is to be used for the provision of rental advisory services or on establishing schemes for supplying residential accommodation’. Just because one can do something, does not mean it’s necessarily right. If we do not question these things, women still might not have the right to vote, to an education, or to equal pay.
Generally, the acts of the Newman Government in cutting funding to tenant services has brought attention to the issue of interest derived from tenant bonds. Tenants definitely have an interest in how these funds are allocated by state and territory governments.
Is there an ulterior motive behind the axing of tenant services? The implementation of the three-strike policy in public housing may be a sign of more disturbing developments to come. And who exactly is going to question these policies and advocate for tenants?
See More:
