Ivana Bacik (Independent)

I know why section 33 specifies "where there are moneys due and owing by a household to a housing authority under any of the provisions to which this section applies...". It applies to earlier legislation under which money may be owing and so forth. My difficulty, however, is that section 20(5) gives no discretion to a housing authority. It simply states a "household shall not be eligible for social housing support where the household or a member of the household was ... in arrears of rent in respect of the dwelling or site ... breached a condition of the tenancy agreement". Section 33(5), however, does give discretion but its provisions do not apply to section 20. The provision which Senator Norris wishes to have inserted essentially replicates the discretionary provision of section 33(5) in section 20. I accept section 20 does not give a housing authority power to charge rent and so forth but it does give power to withhold social housing support. Beyond this, it determines the conditions for eligibility. It is too absolutist. No one is denying a housing authority should have the power to withhold social housing support for breaches or the non-payment of rent arrears. Senator Norris's amendment would provide some leeway. The presumption applies that the household would be ineligible but there would be some scope for a housing authority in cases where it felt hardship was involved, particularly in these recessionary times, and could enter arrangements for the payment of moneys. Given that an authority can do this under section 33, I do not see why it cannot be imported in section 20. It would clarify that there was some discretion that a household would not be ineligible in every situation where there were arrears or a breach of a tenancy agreement. My concern is that a housing authority's hands will be tied.