For doing nothing about the department, Yvette Berry is pulling $324,000 a year. Do you think that’s value for our money? Shouldn’t she require Housing ACT to abide by the law, asks HUGH SELBY.
Little Dion was watching Bluey when I called by his home. Like so many his age he loves that show. It is praised for its positive depiction of family life, constructive parenting messages, and a positive father figure.
There’s no dad in Dion’s life, and all the Bluey characters have a home setting rather better than what Dion and his gran enjoy.
But today, there was a change for the better.
Three men, skilled tradies, repaired his roof. They repointed the cement, replaced broken tiles and, hallelujah, replaced the three skylights into the rooms without any window. Now only light will enter.
The roofers clearly knew what they were doing, moving quickly and with purpose on the roof. That’s more than can be said for Housing ACT, which couldn’t be bothered to tell Dion’s gran that tradies would turn up at around 7am.
Because it is a “service” department there are straightforward expectations of those who work in Housing ACT. One is showing respect to their clients, that is the tenants.
While there are some tenants both in the public and private rental market who live and behave like pigs in a sty, that is no excuse for Housing ACT treating their other tenants as scum.
One law for Housing ACT, another for how it treats its tenants
It’s not a big ask to give a tenant sufficient notice that on a given date people are going to come by and get on with some long overdue work, in this instance many, many, many months.
That wait is despite the law making it crystal clear that urgent repairs (and all those in Dion’s home meet the requirement for being urgent) must be done within a month.
There’s one law for private landlords. There’s another law, called the law of indifference, that is followed by Housing ACT.
Amazon and Auspost tell us when a parcel is going to be delivered. Similarly, suppliers of furniture, white goods and electronic items tell us the likely delivery time.
My plumber fixes the day and then, on the day, gives me notice that they are coming. Likewise, the electrician.
That’s all too much for Housing ACT. They gave the roofers only the address. Although Housing ACT has both the email and the mobile number for gran they neither used it themselves, nor gave it to the roofers.
The culture of an organisation is set by its management. With Housing ACT that culture is: “We care so little about you that we can’t be bothered to let you know what is planned for your home or when anything will be done”.
What would have happened if gran was out when the roofers arrived? She might have taken Dion out on his scooter or gone to the gym or set out to walk with him to the shops.
Presumably the roofers would have been allocated another job, possibly a half hour or more away, all time needlessly wasted, but it still has to be paid for.
Is it too much to ask ACT Housing keep tenants safe and dry?
Ministerial and management shortcomings
Housing ACT has a management that is mismanagement. They have a Minister in Yvette Berry, whose office email is berry@act.gov.au. Despite all the media given to little Dion’s home problems, not only by CityNews, but also The Canberra Times, Yvette has never thought it necessary to explain the misconduct of her department, give gran any good news about when repairs would be done, or share with us her plans to make Housing ACT management develop a service-oriented culture for all who work there.
The buck stops with Yvette who gets up each morning and goes home each night to a place that doesn’t leak, doesn’t have a mould infestation, doesn’t have a wobbly toilet, and doesn’t have junkie gear through the garden.
For doing nothing about this she is pulling $324,000 a year. Do you think that’s value for our money? Shouldn’t Yvette require her directorate to abide by the law? Shouldn’t she replace a management that is indifferent to the law? Should Yvette, too, be allowed to live under the “law of indifference”?
The answer seems to be “Why the fuss?”, not only for matters of housing, but also as Minister for Education when, as readers will recall, Lend Lease somehow got the Campbell Primary School work when Manteena should have got it. Neither Lend Lease nor Manteena did anything wrong, but one or more people, reporting to Yvette, did do something wrong.
Just who “they” were and what they did might become clear when the Integrity Commission finds a way to finalise its inquiries. Could be this year, or the next. Who knows?
Meantime, today’s roofers were there to get on with a job that should have been done before the tenants moved in. How did this “back to front” happen?
It is asinine to spend thousands on renovating the kitchen and painting a place that had a roof leaking in multiple spots, leading to mould here, there and everywhere. Let’s not forget the joys of helping a toddler, Dion, use the wobbling throne under an umbrella.
Yvette has a lovely smile in her Ministerial headshot. I’d like to see the same on a gran who deserves it.
Former barrister Hugh Selby is a CityNews columnist, principally focused on legal affairs. His free podcasts on “Witness Essentials” and “Advocacy in court: preparation and performance” can be heard on the best known podcast sites.
Leave a Reply