Page 1910 - Week 06 - Thursday, 5 May 2005
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
The real dilemma for the taxpayers and those affected directly by the shifting of funding from one financial year to the next is that people have to wait longer for the delivery of essential services and the department falls behind in the effective management of its portfolio responsibilities—a serious failure by this minister and this government. Tenancy management seems to have slipped into the secondary priority level as well. The 2004-05 estimated outcome of $17,179,000 was, in fact, scaled back to $16,527,000. In order to meet the revised target, Housing ACT is still to expend $8,316,000 by the end of the 2004-05 financial year.
Every ACT taxpayer deserves to know why the minister for housing is failing to expend allocated funds in a timely and effective manner on maintaining the public housing asset base. I understand that on current figures that is now worth $2.9 billion. All public housing tenants deserve the right to timely and effective management of their tenancies and their properties. All ACT taxpayers deserve to be confident that their hard-earned dollars are being efficiently managed. Any apparent cost saving in the housing portfolio espoused by the minister is only acting as a disservice to the ACT community. It displays a distinct lack of understanding of the management of a vital asset of the territory.
In regard to public housing, this government has failed to deliver anything new and has failed to deliver on a key election promise. The ALP, as part of its election commitments, signified that it would maintain “its programmed strong support for public and community housing, recognising that housing is the starting point for service delivery to the most needy in our community”. To allocate an apparent additional $7 million to the 2005-06 total expenses, as seen in budget paper 2 at page 18, the minister gleaned this money out of the 2004-05 total cost and, in effect, it is just a rollover of funds due to ineffective expending of the targeted funds within the financial year specified for expenditure. What a failure in responsible management and service delivery!
In reality, the only new initiative that specifically concentrates on the housing sector is the new construction works referred to in budget paper 4 at page 323—the energy and water efficiency initiatives of $1 million, to be completed by June 2006. The ALP indicated in its election commitments that it would offer $4 million to upgrade public housing to make properties more energy efficient. The $1 million is a one-off capital injection for 2005-06 only—an efficiency saving, ironically, in itself.
In terms of growth and improvement initiatives, the ALP committed to expanding the stock of public housing by accessing capital funds, at a cost of $10 million a year for three years. The money for this commitment simply does not appear in the 2005-06 budget papers under what would be assumed as new capital works in budget paper 4 at page 323. I did note at question time that the Treasurer alluded to the fact that he would take a question on that on notice. I will hold him to that.
In response to calls to indicate where the money is located, the minister implied that it was not in growth funds that were to be found in the ALP’s 2004 election commitments; rather, it appears to be part of a funding initiative that was announced in the 2004-05 budget paper 3 on page 189, as part of the affordable housing initiative, of a capital injection of $20 million over four years to provide Housing ACT with the funds to provide more public housing. Yet in the budget papers for 2005-06 there is evidence to
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .