While the future of many residents in apartments being sold off by HousingFirst remains uncertain, investigations by TWiSK and now The Age point to the crucial role of decisions made by council more than two decades ago.
Read The Age story by Rachel Dexter from Sunday 4 April. | Or here if you are blocked by paywall
These paragraphs in The Age story raise serious and disturbing questions for Council.
“The council established the Port Phillip Housing Trust and transferred ownership of its $36 million community housing projects – including the Oasis units – to the trust in 2005.
“The council then appointed HousingFirst (then known as the Port Phillip Housing Association) as the independent trustee. This structure granted HousingFirst the power to sell assets without council approval – a right the non-profit organisation it is now exercising.
“Port Phillip councillors Justin Halliday and Beti Jay sit on the provider’s board. Mayor Alex Makin said Halliday and Jay were barred by the Federal Corporations Act from sharing news of the impending sale before it was made public, and could not veto the sale.”
As it has turned out, the credibility of being a council-supported social housing project was useless and disingenuous for the hapless tenants of the Oasis.
Eviction was just a knock at the door away, despite tenancies lasting decades.
How did Council transfer decision-making and sale power to another entity? What motivated that decision?
HousingFirst and Port Phillip Housing Trust records raise further questions
We will be putting some serious questions to Council about the governance structure between HousingFirst and the Port Phillip Housing Trust.
Let’s start with confirmation and explanation of the people involved in the governance of the two entities. Records below indicate that the membership of the trust and the trustee are identical.
It appears HousingFirst manages the Trust, but that the same directors are also acting as trustees of the Trust itself.
Over time, HousingFirst has evolved into a large housing association while still, effectively, sitting on both sides of the trust relationship.
This could create a clear conflict, particularly given that fees are charged between the entities, and would likely fail to meet basic contemporary governance standards.
Surely the governance team at Port Phillip has produced paperwork addressing this question. If not, why not?
And we are certain we are not the only ones interested in reading that report, should it exist.
But wait – there’s more.
That, however, will have to wait for future revelations.
