Page 4487 - Week 12 - Wednesday, 14 October 2009
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
of the net average maintenance expenditure per dwelling in 2005-06, Havelock spent $3,237, whereas ACT public housing spent $2,509. That is a fair difference on what is a fairly low amount. In addition to that, in terms of the net average total overhead, probably salaries and administration, Havelock spent $1,791 per dwelling as opposed to Housing ACT, which spent roughly double that at $3,356.
It is also worth noting the average total overhead expenditure per dwelling for interest and depreciation. Havelock came in under Housing ACT by about $1,000. Havelock came in at $6,173, whereas ACT public housing came in at $7,163. These are telling statistics and they show that there is considerable benefit to be gained by doing these comparisons. It would be worth while to see comparisons that go beyond the ACT and into other jurisdictions. I welcome the sentiments of Ms Bresnan’s motion, but we will be supporting Mr Hargreaves’s amendment.
It is a matter of concern that there are still a number of factors that mean the operating costs of community housing can be understated. According to Havelock Housing, they include voluntarism, concession, non-quantified state subsidies, the cost of capital and the provision for asset replacement. All these things are very hard for the ACT to compile, but if we can put a price on these and actually quantify this information, then it would be very valuable to do so. Hopefully, the KPMG report will do that, but, of course, we do not know that. When the KPMG report comes in we will be able to make a better assessment of what it includes, what it does not include and what we need to find out. Then we can plan our way forward.
The opposition look forward to seeing the data and the continuing work in this important area. By simply passing this motion today with the amendment, the opposition do not see this issue as being closed. This is merely the beginning. When we get the KPMG report we hope that we will be able to build upon the information that is included in it. The Assembly may be able to move a motion calling on Housing ACT to do more research, if that is required.
MS BURCH (Brindabella) (4.38): I take this opportunity to congratulate the housing minister and the Chief Minister on their achievements with respect to community and affordable housing. In speaking on this motion concerning community and affordable housing, I think it is important that the Assembly is aware of the extensive work that has been undertaken by this government on the future of community and affordable housing in the ACT. In addition, the Assembly would be interested in the views of the sector itself through its peak body, the Community Housing Federation of Australia.
The Assembly may also be interested to know that several reviews of community housing and discussion papers on its future and role have been undertaken over the past few years. I looked through the reviews and discussion papers and found the following five efforts. First, the consultation in 2002 and the subsequent release of the ACT community housing framework in 2003 confirmed the ACT government’s position that community housing should grow, but not at the expense of public housing. The framework set the goal of growth and gave rise to the following pieces of work more or less related to how growth might be possible.
Second, a GAPP Consulting review of the head leasing program in 2003 produced draft guidelines and a funding framework and was releassed for discussion in 2004. It
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .