Privatisation's shadow cast over housing plan

The Liberals received widespread and well-deserved praise this week for launching a long-term plan to provide increased shelter to battling Tasmanian families.

But its plans to relinquish ownership of between 300 and 500 existing public housing properties has drawn serious and justified concern.

It is abundantly clear how destabilising and demoralising having no place to call home can be.

The government wants to see 900 new affordable homes delivered in the next four years, housing 1600 vulnerable Tasmanians.

The target is significantly more modest than its own projections, which suggest an extra 656 properties will be needed a year, compared with the 225 predicted under its plan.

The government also publicly acknowledges 2400 new dwellings a year will be needed to meet demand over the next 15 years.

But their new strategy is a start, and undeniably a positive step in the right direction.

There are currently 2800 Tasmanians on the social housing waiting list, and the escalating number shows no signs of slowing.

Home ownership is declining, property prices are climbing, and low income households are increasingly being priced out of the private rental market.

What is needed is a clearly articulated explanation for why these and other future privatisations may be necessary, and a rock solid promise that the houses will be available to Tasmania's most needed long into the future.

The Liberals want to draw on a combination of government, private and community housing options to reach their targets as part of a 10-year strategy.

Handing over up to 500 properties to the community sector is intended to give community organisations the financial backing to build up to 150 new houses, which in itself is a laudable goal.

However, the unprecedented pilot program to privatise these public assets does carry significant long-term risk.

Tied to this program must be watertight guarantees these houses will remain secure, affordable housing stock well into the future.

Community organisations play a noble, unenviable and entirely necessary role in offering help to those in need.

They deserve praise and trust, and should never be undermined in their efforts to try and do more for the state's most vulnerable.

However, their role is clearly not getting any easier.

Reports of sky-rocketing demand for charitable services around Christmas and winter have become an unshakable fixture.

The real risk is that some organisations may be forced to offload housing stock in five, ten or twenty years to keep afloat, and the government might not be able to intervene.

There must be assurances that should that dire day ever arrive, struggling Tasmanian families will not be left out in the cold.

It doesn't cut the muster for the government to deflect privatisation fears back on to the former government, who gave away management of 4000 public properties to the community sector but retained their titles.

But it's also nowhere near good enough to demonise these privatisation plans outright.

What is needed is a clearly articulated explanation for why these and other future privatisations may be necessary, and a rock solid promise that the houses will be available to Tasmania's most needed long into the future.