Lara Alexander Reflection
Mr. Speaker, I have multiple areas of interest but three areas I would like to make comment on. I want to open by reflecting on the contribution of my fellow member for Bass, Lara Alexander.
As was noted at the time in the Chamber, her contribution clearly came from a place of passion and deep, genuine care for many Tasmanians, and particularly those she served in previous roles. She has had some quiet moments to sit down with constituents in our electorate.
It is really refreshing that someone stands and speaks passionately and delivers from the heart their genuine reflection on what is before us. I wanted to put that on the record. We have worked together with a few constituents and we come together and agree on a few things but I do have a different approach, I suppose, or come to some of these concerns from a different position.
I note that another member of this place reflected on the now minister and said they expect that he has genuine intention with what he is hoping to achieve here. We have had a bit of a funny week and we have had a funny day today. We have been talking about ministerial standards, expectations, quality of service and care and respect for our community.
It seems to me that when you try to fix something by picking it up and moving it somewhere else and then hoping it is going to be better, there needs to be moments where we reflect and are critical about the work we are already delivering.
We have heard in the contributions that have been made so far, phrases like, 'We need to be nimble', 'We need to efficient', 'We need to be responsive', 'The system does not currently work', 'Organisations need to be solid and healthy' and 'We need to make sure that we work together'.
To my mind - a bit like the contribution I made this morning - these things should all be possible from within government, government departments and as a parliament in the way that we support our community.
If those things are not true now then we need to ask why, not just say, 'Okay, we will try to fix it by putting it here and maybe they will do better, maybe they will have a good culture, maybe they will have good systems, maybe they will have good governance'. They should already be the things that we deliver.
The gigantic scale of the teams within the department that are tasked with the delivery who, for so many within that system, go to work day on day to deliver an incredible, overwhelming workload, but the system should be setup to already deliver that. I am not a big believer in duplicating broken systems by hoping that a new system will magically fix it. That was my first contribution and it feels a little bit like, if I put it over there in a box and make them responsible for it, I am not responsible for it anymore. Therefore I might not be responsible for the outcomes or the culture or the quality or for their efficiency or for the behaviours, for the outcomes and the deliveries.
It feels like, 'Well, if we put it over there, it is not on our balance sheet anymore. We do not have to be financially responsible for it, maybe we are also a little more removed from the tasks that are delivered and the financial results and the responsibility to ensure that there is good work and quality work that is done, because that is their job now'. I want to illustrate that in a couple of reflections. One is in the statement of ministerial expectations and I want to make a couple of comments about that and put those on the record.
Then I want to bring an electorate example to my concerns about this separation of responsibility and accountability. Making a couple of reflections on the statement of ministerial expectations, on page 3, under strategic expectations, the first statement in 'Housing' is a fundamental need that supports people to reach their goals.
There has been a massive missed opportunity to say that housing is a human right and it has missed the opportunity to define housing as a human right. I also put on the record that I am sharing these comments and the comments that have been identified and shared with me through our shadow spokesperson and our team here.
On page 4 in the second set of dot points under the introductory comment in undertaking its functions and purpose, I expect the Homes Tasmania board to, under the second dot point, it says 'maximise the supply of affordable housing targeted to those in need', but with consideration, this should perhaps read, 'maximise the supply of affordable and social housing to those in need'.
That is a recommendation also by Shelter Tasmania. In the next set of dot points, under 'give consideration to social, economic and environmental sustainability', under a sub-dot point it says, 'efficiently manage and maintain its core assets'. We have to be careful about how we refer and categorise things and perhaps that should read, 'through reducing the maintenance liability and bringing assets up to their current building and environmental standards'.
As we have heard from so many today there are people in our community who are concerned to raise the basic fundamental levels of living standards for fear there will be some sort of repercussion. It is really important: a recognition that things should be brought up to their basic standards.
Further over in a statement, and this goes to the comment that I was saying before, on page 6, under section 3, under 3.4, 'relationship with service providers and industry', the statement says: 'I expect that these committees will include representation from relevant sector and organisations'. We note that that has to include Housing Tasmania tenants and those who have lived experience, and that the board will consider their advice in its decision-making.
As I said, we had heard about how this new entity is supposedly somehow going to operate differently under a different culture and behaviour and set of outcomes than the current system. Then it goes on to say, 'I expect these committees to meet at least three times per calendar year'. Now, if you are hoping to be nimble and agile, quarterly meetings of feedback and providing that level of representation is not going to provide the outcome that is intended.
Under section 4, under 4.3, under the heading of delivering on the overarching expectations I expect Homes Tasmania to, the sixth dot point says, 'deliver affordable and secure social housing with effective tenancy management services to achieve positive outcomes for tenants across the social housing system'.
We trust that this will be reconsidered to include tenants exiting the expiring National Rental Affordability Scheme (NRAS), including NRAS tenants who are ineligible for the Private Rental Incentives Program (PRIS). On page 8, under 4.4, 'I expect Homes Tasmania to maintain capital structure and debt levels that is consistent with the overall strategic portfolio objectives'. It is really important that debt should remain low and only be used for the provision of social and affordable housing, including housing support, homelessness services and crisis accommodation. We have all seen the outcome of the exploding debt levels in other areas.
They are the comments on the statement of ministerial expectation. I want to take this through to what I can see - and there are lots of risks that have been identified and people have spoken to other things so I will not repeat that contribution, but I am really concerned about the separation of accountability and the separation of responsibility. I am concerned that in the current structure there is a poor line of sight across the ever-extended links between where money starts and money finishes.
For instance, if the Government grants funds to an entity to deliver social housing and then the entity that is delivering that social housing engages sub-contractors, where there is a concern between the entity and the sub-contractors and there may be disputes that are unresolved, the Government now has wiped its hands of that in delivering these social housing outcomes because they have delivered it via a third party. There is already a current concern with that in the system.
To me, this separation allows that to be even further lost and further grey in who is actually responsible. I have a real time case, minister, that I have brought to your attention of some seven tradies who have worked on a project in Launceston.
They collectively took the contracts because they believed them to be government contracts and in an environment of really difficult operating circumstances for tradies in terms of supply and payments and all sorts of things they felt confident that this was a secure engagement. They delivered all their work.
They are tilers and painters and all sorts of tradies on these social housing properties that were delivered in the northern suburbs. To this day, months and months later, despite repeated requests, they have completed their work, it is a great outcome, and the provider has not paid them and they have not been paid.
They now have seemingly a really difficult pathway to have anyone listen to them and take seriously their concerns for a lack of a payment of what would have been seen to them as a government contract, when government say, 'We will pay our small businesses within a short period of time.
We will be sure to ensure that our tradies who are working on behalf of Tasmanians to deliver social housing are looked after.' That is not the case in this scenario, to the point where these tradies have been put under quite serious duress from the third party if they continue to raise the need to be paid. It concerns me that this entity is being established because the current system does not work. That in itself is not good enough.
However, where it actually further breaks down that direct relationship of accountability, either in social outcomes, emotional, community outcomes for people, is that accountability on the financial outcomes for people in our community. I only had those three areas that I want to make a contribution on but it is really important.
If something is not right, if it is not serving the needs of our community, if it is not nimble enough, it is not efficient enough, does not have good culture and it is not delivering the outcomes that our community need in a way that actually serves them, then do not just pick it all up and move it somewhere else and hope for the best. Dive in and do the hard work –
Ms O'Connor - Yes, but it is not that Housing Tasmania was not delivering. It was government that was not delivering. We just have to be –
Ms FINLAY - That is right and when things are broken and not working do not pack them off to somewhere else. Do the hard work and address the issues that need addressing.
Video - YouTube
18th August 2022 - 3:56pm