Page 3311 - Week 09 - Thursday, 24 August 2017
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
MR PARTON (Brindabella) (10.29): As reflected in the minister’s statement, helping people escape the cycle of housing affordability stress and the homelessness trap are not the only challenges we face in this portfolio. We have heard the minister talk this morning about what a wonderful job is being done within this total facilities management contract and, sure, it is up to the minister to optimistically talk up what is going on in her portfolio space. But my email inbox tells a vastly different story. The minister is well aware of many of the problems that have been brought to my office regarding Spotless, and I am sure that there are many others that I have not seen that have gone to the minister’s office.
We can see from constituent feedback and from public commentary such as from the Auditor-General that those fortunate enough to be allocated government-funded accommodation still have many challenges. We must concede that it is a difficult job; a vast network of services has to be provided for so many people so I am not for a single moment suggesting that it is an easy job, because it is not.
The safe and sustainable housing aspect of the goals stated for Housing ACT requires the government as landlord to keep its housing stock in good condition. In the last full year for which we have expenditure information, something like $50.5 million was spent on repairs and maintenance and refurbishments. But, as pointed out by my colleague Ms Lawder, around this time last year, the maintenance expenditure on public housing still left a few things to be desired.
As the minister acknowledges, the Auditor-General pointed out significant problems with the way this government handled its total facilities management contract. The Auditor-General was uncomfortable with quite a few things. I do not want to catalogue the full menu of things that worried the Auditor-General, but there are a few examples that might make the taxpayer feel uncomfortable. These include: inadequate oversight of the total facilities management contract; problematic work order audits with Housing ACT not enforcing the required standards; contract variations and change documentation not effectively managed; lack of transparency on contract variations; no audit trail for decision-making on contract variations; problematic work order audits; timeliness targets for routine tasks not met; and doubts over the reliability of timeliness data.
The Auditor-General’s overall conclusion was that this government’s management of the contract is not fully effective. To be fair, the Auditor-General was satisfied that there was a sound governance structure, but this had not been fully implemented. There is certainly enough here to get you worried, and it must have got the minister worried because she has agreed to implement, as she said in her statement, all of the Auditor-General’s recommendations, and I commend her for that.
The bottom line message is that much needs to be done to tighten management of our public housing asset. This observation is not simply based on the audit report, but also on live feedback from real people who, as public housing tenants, become exasperated and driven to despair by the way they believe their landlord treats them.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video