News location:

Thursday, October 3, 2024 | Digital Edition | Crossword & Sudoku

Growing plan isn’t a plan to grow, says minister

Housing Minister Yvette Berry… “The minister’s denial of any intention under the Growing and Renewing Program to increase the proportion of public housing stock is truly bizarre and certainly contradicts the ACT government’s boast that it is a ‘progressive government’.”

“The Supreme Court decision, we believe, will highlight the heartlessness of the ACT government’s seemingly relentless war against the poor and less well off in our community.” JON STANHOPE and KHALID AHMED look at Minister Berry’s bizarre management of public housing. 

In responding to the Auditor-General’s report on the Growing and Renewing the Public Housing Program, Housing Minister Yvette Berry said that increasing the proportion of public housing was not the aim of the program!

The Growing and Renewing Public Housing Program was announced in the 2019-20 Budget. It included an undertaking to replace 1000 public housing dwellings and to increase the stock by 400 dwellings. One wonders then what meaning the minister ascribes to the word “growing”.

This was the second phase of the purported growth and renewal of public housing undertaken by the ACT government. The announcement followed the completion of an earlier program in 2019 that falsely boasted that 1288 public housing dwellings had been “renewed” under that program.

We have previously noted that the 1288 public housing dwellings referred to were sold off with all proceeds directed to Light Rail Stage 1, under an agreement entered into by Chief Minister Andrew Barr with the Commonwealth Government. 

The stock disposed of was not fully replaced with an overall reduction of 194 dwellings. The government also sold off and banked prime land blocks and has failed to provide a full financial acquittal of the Program (Mark-I).

The audit report on the Program (Mark-II) pointedly noted, among other things, that the proportion of public housing stock in the territory had declined and will continue to decline within the timeframe of the Program. 

Minister Berry’s claim that the aim of the Program was not to increase the stock of public housing is extraordinary and raises a raft of serious questions. 

Interestingly, the government in its formal response to this audit accepted all recommendations. That surely flies in the face of the claim by the minister that the objectives of the Program were different from those that formed the basis of the audit assessment.

It begs the question whether Ms Berry is suggesting that the auditor-general got the objectives of the Program wrong and went on to audit something that was never intended? 

However, in accordance with the requirements of the Auditor-General Act 1996 the Community Services Directorate (CSD) was provided with a draft report and a proposed final report for comment. The auditor-general is required to take any comments or objections into account and if necessary, make any necessary changes. Notably, however, no objections were raised by CSD in this instance.

In any event it is indisputable that there was a public commitment by the ACT government to increase the stock of public housing by 400 units of housing under the Program (Mark-II). Sadly, as a result of the failure to meet that target, together with the loss of stock that occurred in the Program (Mark-I), the decline in public housing in Canberra since 2011, that we have previously highlighted, would not have been as dramatic or destructive.

If, therefore, the objectives of the two programs, announced with such fanfare at their respective commencements, had been realised, the proportion of public housing in the ACT would be much higher than it is. There would still, of course, be a major reduction and hence shortfall in public housing stock compared to the levels in 2011 or 2016. 

The minister’s denial is truly bizarre

This assessment must surely have been provided to the minister by Housing ACT. The minister’s denial of any intention under the Growing and Renewing Program to increase the proportion of public housing stock is truly bizarre and certainly contradicts the ACT government’s boast that it is a “progressive government”.

A major hurdle in meeting the objectives of this program, particularly the increase of 400 dwellings, was clearly the Program design. It involved relocating tenants in free-standing dwellings and selling off their homes. The dwellings targeted for sale were tenanted in large measure by elderly widowed women, the disabled and people with mental health conditions.

The government resorted to forced evictions which were characterised by the then CEO of ACTCOSS, Dr Emma Campbell, as heartless, while being strenuously defended by Minister Berry.

Shortly thereafter, the Ombudsman commenced an Own Motion Inquiry while tenants initiated a challenge in the Supreme Court asserting, among other things, that in some instances, the evictions constituted a breach of human rights. 

The government has indicated, in the most recent Budget Papers, the potential for it to be hit with a significant liability arising out of this litigation. The involuntary tenant relocation was paused in August 2023, and Ms Berry apologised to the tenants for distress caused. Forced relocations were ceased subsequently. The Program completion is now expected in 2027.

We await with interest the Supreme Court decision in the case brought against ACT Housing. A decision which will, we believe, highlight the heartlessness of the ACT government’s seemingly relentless war against the poor and less well off in our community. A decision that we have no doubt the ALP and the Greens are praying will not be handed down before the election.

Jon Stanhope is a former chief minister of the ACT and Dr Khalid Ahmed a former senior ACT Treasury official.

Who can be trusted?

In a world of spin and confusion, there’s never been a more important time to support independent journalism in Canberra.

If you trust our work online and want to enforce the power of independent voices, I invite you to make a small contribution.

Every dollar of support is invested back into our journalism to help keep citynews.com.au strong and free.

Become a supporter

Thank you,

Ian Meikle, editor

Jon Stanhope

Jon Stanhope

Share this

One Response to Growing plan isn’t a plan to grow, says minister

Mike of Canberra says: 24 September 2024 at 1:55 pm

Mr Stanhope and Professor Ahmed, you are longstanding advocates for greater volumes of public housing across all suburbs of Canberra.
This sounds all very well if you assume that those living in such housing will invariably live and act like their private home-owning neighbours.
Unfortunately, all too often, this proves not to be the case, with private residents neighbouring such developments being subject to criminal and/or anti-social behaviour along with very poorly neglected properties and zero management by the responsible ACT government agency Housing ACT (HACT).
I know about this because I have lived next or near to a range of public housing in the small street where I have lived for many years.
This street has always contained a preponderance of public housing, and this worked fine when the housing was being allocated to low-income workers. Such housing has long-since ceased to be the norm where I live and, from what I gather, where many other private residents live.
The lived experience in my street is of street riots, open drug dealing from one of the properties, beaten-up addicts who have been unable to pay their bills seeking assistance from nearby private residents, and most conspicuously, most properties being maintained in a highly slovenly condition, in many cases becoming a home for plagues of rats and other vermin.
This is due in large part to HACT never properly discharging its supposed role as the owner and manager of the properties in question.
Now I am told that two properties on the high side of the street are to be converted to four “supportive housing” dwellings (or domestic violence shelters depending on who you talk to).
In regard to the latter option, I have also lived near housing allocated to domestic violence victims and guess what? Somehow or another, the violent partner always seems to find out where their abused wife or girlfriend is living.
In the former case, the housing is just as likely to allocated to “recovering” drug addicts. When this latter scenario is combined with the ACT’s highly liberal laws in relation to dangerous illicit drugs, it creates a situation whereby no one living next to or near such properties can feel safe in their homes.
How would the two of you propose to address these issues?
If you are to continue to advocate for a greater supply of such housing across Canberra, then it is contingent upon you to advocate for a quality of management and stewardship of such an estate that addresses the problems to which I have referred and, preferably, prevents them arising in the first place.

Reply

Leave a Reply

Related Posts

Follow us on Instagram @canberracitynews