They are surely not talking about the majority of age pensioners, just the ones living in million-dollar-plus homes with private incomes tailored so they get the concession card and a part pension.

Let's talk about the other age pensioners, the ones who live on $439.40 per week, and why they hesitate to downsize. Let's talk about the costs involved.

Agents fees, usually 3.3 per cent. Then conveyancing. I'm told solicitors tailor the fees on a scale according to the selling price, not the work involved. Then, at least six months rental while they look for a suitable home. They may get a small rent allowance from Centrelink.

Then removalist fees, household expenses, plus water rates on the rented property. I am not sure if Centrelink will pay a part pension or anything while they have the sale price in the bank, so living expenses and rent will have to be paid from the selling price. Then, the purchase price on another home for the pensioner and pets. They will be competing with investors; another conveyancing; removalist fees, then stamp duty. Stamp duty at 3.3 per cent: even single age pensioners are slugged the full amount. Then the pensioner may need some furnishings, carpet or some renovation.

If the Government is serious about helping pensioners downsize, try making us exempt from stamp duty and then, if the pensioner on a low income does have some money left, that could be invested as an income supplement etc and the investment be deem-free for them.

Let's see how serious you are.

I wish to raise my concerns to Minister [for Family and Community Services and Social Housing] Pru Goward, who I contacted via letter on March 15 [this year] and have not received a reply, about the NSW Government’s ‘Future Direction for Social Housing’ reforms.

A mixture of social and private housing to a ratio of seven private to three social is to be implemented by NSW Housing, and I ask when will this occur in the Mary’s Mount estate in Goulburn?

Former Minister [for Family and Community Services and Social Housing] Brad Hazzard publicly stated on September 25 in 2015 that a mixture of private and public housing in the same development led to better communities. Minister Hazzard stated that: “We’ve learnt over the past 30 years that having whopping great aggregations of public housing isn’t really in the best interests of those tenants.”

There are currently two properties in this estate that have been empty since January. Are they to be sold to meet the NSW Government’s ‘Future Direction for Social Housing’ reforms, or tenanted out when NSW Housing ‘gets around to it’?

Family and Community Services have stated in the past that they will review opportunities to deliver social housing within communities which integrate social, affordable and private housing.

Reviewing is not delivering. When will these reforms be delivered in Goulburn, Minister Goward?

Land owners with residential rental properties have been slugged with a totally unreasonable share of the new emergency services levy. The new levy will effectively reduce the net rent collected by landlords by close to $5 per week. 

The Property Owners Association considers that emergency services in NSW should be adequately funded as the service provided is of major importance to everyone. In the past, funding for emergency services has been included in insurance policies for homes, businesses and property contents. Many emergency services were also major charity fundraisers and donations were a very important income stream.

The Department of Justice, Office of Emergency Management collects statutory contributions to fund the State’s fire and emergency services, consistent with the provisions of the Fire Brigades Act 1989, the Rural Fire Act 1997, and the State Emergency Service Act 1989.

The NSW Government contributes 14.6 per cent of the funds required to operate the fire and emergency services; local councils contribute 11.7 per cent; and the insurance industry contributes 73.7 per cent.

Proposed changes to the method of collecting revenue is based on collecting the emergency services funds from land owners by a levy on rates. This will remove the levy from insurance policies. 

Greens emergency services spokesman David Shoebridge says the government’s own 2012 paper on this issue shows 49 per cent of the levy was currently paid by business through their insurance. Business’s share of the levy would drop to 13 per cent under the system based on rates. In contrast, 45 per cent of the levy is currently paid by owners or occupiers of residential properties. This would rise to 75 per cent under the rates based system, he said.

The Property Owners Association understands that business is responsible for 55 per cent of the callouts. The Property Owners Association believes that tenants should share in the cost of funding emergencies. Raising costs to landlords simply attacks viability of landlords and, in turn, reduces housing stocks and magnifies the housing affordability problem.