Page 3497 - Week 11 - Wednesday, 15 November 2006
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
The ACT government’s May 2006 response to the community housing funding review was most unfortunate. The government argued that, yes, there should be an expansion in community housing but that the sector should do this without government assistance. This is a long way short of 1,000 homes by 2005. While the government expected community housing providers to increase their stock, the government warned that it would be cutting the level of funding it provides. There was an exception to this cut, however: if organisations were willing to merge they would be able to negotiate with the ACT government for additional funding. This change is also a long way from the pre-2004 commitment to diversity. The 2006-07 budget has put the community housing sector under great pressure following the imposition of a complex and expensive accreditation process, a hold on contract payments and an overall reduction in funding.
Let us take the issue of accreditation. In 2001 the government raised the idea of getting community housing providers accredited. In 2003 the ACT government committed to developing an accreditation process for the ACT in 2003-04 in conjunction with the Coalition of Community Housing Organisations ACT, CCHOACT, and the community housing sector. In 2004 the government went back to talking about the idea. In 2005, the idea itself seemed to be forgotten. Then in May 2006 the government said it would provide funding for three organisations to undertake an accreditation process in 2006-07 and a further three organisations in 2007-08.
One month later, when the 2006-07 budget came down, the government began saying all community housing providers must reach stage 1 of accreditation by 27 December and they will receive no funding to assist in this process. They also have to achieve this while operating on smaller budgets; plus, if they do not meet stage 1 accreditation by 27 December, they are unlikely to receive further funding.
Understandably, everyone who works or lives in the sector finds the whole process distressing, confusing and disempowering, with no real answer to obvious questions such as: why is the government continually changing its stance? What is the subtext of these change plans? How essential and useful is this form of accreditation anyway?
The government has most likely taken a blunt approach in 2006 because it does not think it has the funding to support these organisations and their work; but, instead of being up-front about the situation, working with the sector to deal with its problems, organisations believe they are being played off against each other and required to meet unachievable targets with diminished funding. Consequently, it looks as though they are being set up to fail, making the government’s choice of whom and what to fund an easier one.
Barnardos and the Association for Postsecondary School Accommodation, APSSA, looked like giving up on their community housing programs, and Canberra Community Housing for Young People has concerns for its future altogether. Perhaps only Havelock, which has the largest number of community housing tenancies, and Community Housing Canberra, which has a bigger role in development and the provision of affordable housing than it does as a social housing provider, will survive.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .