Page 4486 - Week 12 - Wednesday, 14 October 2009
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
as we also compare local government authorities against each other. If we are to maximise the benefits of our federal system, it would make sense that in areas such as housing we benchmark ourselves against other jurisdictions so that we can ensure we are delivering an efficient service.
It is important that when we are assessing options for the future of the sector we do so with the best advice available. I note the government’s amendment in which it is made clear that some of this work has been done at a federal level through the KPMG report. I understand the analysis will look at things such as formulae for government funding and property ownership and equity models. I understand the analysis will look at these things both in the ACT and across the other jurisdictions. This analysis will provide information on how each of these factors impacts on the viability of providers and how they deliver their services.
I will expand on what the minister said earlier about some of the complexities in measuring data from different states. I share his concern. I very much understand the enormity and complexity of comparing different jurisdictions on issues such as maintenance and the different lease arrangements that exist. All of these are very much dependent upon the legislative arrangements that exist in each jurisdiction. One jurisdiction could be doing something in compliance with its own law which could be in contradiction to a different law. Therefore, you are going to get different management models, different data, different information and different funding models which make this a very tricky operation. That is why I think the federal government should be applauded for putting together and commissioning this KPMG report. It is a big task. I acknowledge that it would probably be a very big task for Housing ACT to do this as well.
It makes sense to me, and it makes sense to the opposition, that it is best to wait and see what information is contained in the KPMG report. Then, when we get that, we can decide the best way forward. That is probably the best service we can provide to the ACT taxpayer. Before commissioning and committing Housing ACT’s resources to undertaking such research, it is best to wait for perhaps a few months—hopefully just a few months—for the KPMG report to be tabled so that we can then base our plan of attack on the information that will be available free of charge to the territory through the KPMG report.
There are a number of models available for the management of the social housing sector in the ACT and elsewhere. These include community organisations, joint ventures between church, charities and agencies, cooperatives which own the housing stock and cooperatives which do not own the housing stock. There can be housing associations that do not own the stock but manage the properties and tenancies, and then there are government owned and managed properties.
Some information that is already available to me shows that community housing is doing a pretty reasonable job. Here in the ACT Havelock Housing spends more on maintenance per dwelling than Housing ACT does on its properties. Havelock Housing spends much less per dwelling on overheads, including salaries and administration. I believe I have quoted to the Assembly before, and it is worth reiterating, the Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute report of June 2008 by Dr Jon Hall in regard to some of the comparisons. It is worth noting that, in terms
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .