We must help the homeless

In arguing that the waiving of the state’s $157 million historic housing debt would amount to rewarding bad behaviour, Senator Eric Abetz let his ideology get ahead of his commonsense.

Liberal Senator Eric Abetz.

TASMANIAN Liberal Senator Eric Abetz has a proven track record of being a passionate advocate for the state he represents in the Upper House of the federal parliament. But yesterday he pulled the wrong rein.

In arguing as he did on Sky News that the waiving of the state’s $157 million historic housing debt would amount to rewarding bad behaviour, Senator Abetz let his ideology get ahead of his commonsense.

DON’T WAIVE SOCIAL HOUSING DEBT, SAYS SENATOR

Yes, a purely subjective observation of the issue might suggest there are plenty of technical reasons why the Federal Government should hold the line. But the fact is the $15 million in interest payments that the debt incurs each year could be far better spent on actually helping the homeless at a time when Tasmania is enduring a housing crisis.

And besides, Senator Abetz should not be subjective on such issues. Waiving — or at the very least renegotiating — the debt is clearly in his state’s interests. And advocating for his state’s interests is literally the definition of Senator Abetz’s job.

As the Federal Parliamentary library reminds us, “the framers of the Australian Constitution intended that the primary role of the Senate would be to protect the interests of the less populous states by giving equal representation to all the states”. It follows, therefore, that their intention was that senators would vote not for political parties but in the best interests of the state they represent.

The founding fathers were clearly not silly men, and they understood this was likely to be idealistic in practice, but it remained the cornerstone of their concept of the Senate. That’s why Tassie — a state of 500,000 people — has 12 senators (one for every 41,000 people), the same as NSW with 7.5 million (one for every 625,000 people).

The housing debt was incurred between the 1950s and 1980s when Tasmania borrowed from the federal treasury to boost its social housing. The interest rate was therefore initially set in times of peak interest rates, at about 14 per cent. The rate has been renegotiated lower, but remains a $15 million drag on the state budget each year. Community sector groups estimate it could take until 2042 to pay it off at current rates.

State Housing Minister Roger Jaensch (who, it must be said, has been remarkably energised over the past week or so since the Mercury launched our Give them Shelter campaign) plans to raise the issue when his federal counterpart Michael Sukkar visits Hobart tomorrow. Mr Sukkar, for his part, said he is coming ready to “support the efforts to alleviate housing and homelessness issues”.

And yet Senator Abetz says the federal Minister should not budge: “The simple fact is that Tasmania borrowed money for the purposes of social housing and there needs to be repayment of that, otherwise it rewards bad behaviour by state governments.”

We beg to disagree. Yes, the Federal Government has recently delivered Tasmania $30 million in funding for social housing through the Hobart City Deal. And yes, it is hard to build a strong argument for the debt to be either waived or relaxed — well, actually ... other than that to do so would see millions of dollars freed up to help those who are doing it the toughest in our state. What’s that state? The one Senator Abetz represents.