ACT taxpayers are out of pocket by an average of $227,000 per house after paying for the purchase and demolition of the first nine Fluffy houses, new figures show.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
or signup to continue reading
The amount is the net cost, after the blocks were sold to new owners in recent months, and doesn't include the cost of the taskforce.
The government released the figures after ACT Auditor-General Maxine Cooper released her first audit report on the scheme on Friday, calling for more detailed financial updates.
Dr Cooper's report also revealed that the Commonwealth government played financial hardball over its loan to the ACT, trying to impose onerous conditions and a floating interest rate.
Workplace Safety Minister Mick Gentleman has now released detailed costs for the first nine houses to be bought, demolished and the land resold.
Owners were paid an average of $584,000. The homes cost an average of $163,500 each to demolish, including disposal costs, assessments, holding costs, testing and the like. The cleared land was then sold for an average of $520,400.
The result is a net cost of $227,000, not counting the taskforce and its staff, conveyance fees, the cost of purchase valuations and interest on the commonwealth loan.
The government believes its early estimates are still sound, and the scheme will cost about $400 million all up once the land is sold.
"It has, and will continue to be felt strongly in years to come," Mr Gentleman said. "It is important for the community as well as affected owners to understand as we head into the sales phase of the program that the ACT government is not profiteering of the sale of blocks."
But he also stressed that the first nine blocks could not be used to extrapolate the costs of the entire scheme, in which just over 1000 homes are being demolished.
Dr Cooper's audit recommended regular updates, including the costs of the Commonwealth loan, not included to date.
"The total cost of the scheme needs to be provided to stakeholders and the public in a readily accessible manner. Accordingly, whole‐of‐life reporting on revenue and costs [including borrowing costs] from the scheme's inception to completion needs to be presented in a publicly available document," she said.
Dr Cooper also revealed new detail about the negotiation between the ACT and the Commonwealth over the loan.
The commonwealth tried to impose a range of conditions, including loan payments being held in a specified account, separately identifying all receipts and payments related to the loan, reporting annually to the Commonwealth on properties sold, demolished, reconstructed and resold, and providing "any other information requested by the Commonwealth at any time in its absolute discretion".
The ACT Treasury complained that forcing the ACT to agree to a significant administrative burden might mean compliance costs outweighed the "relatively minor financial benefit the ACT receives from the lower financing costs". The Commonwealth conceded the point.
Dr Cooper said the loan was at a fixed interest rate of 2.605 per cent for the first $750 million and 3.015 per cent on the balance of $250 million. The Commonwealth had sought to reset the interest rate every 12 months, but ACT Treasury successfully argued that a floating rate could result in the ACT paying more than if it had borrowed the funds privately. It won that argument also.
The interest would amount to just over $215 million, Dr Cooper said.
Dr Cooper said the cost of buying houses had been underestimated. The government's early estimates were an average of $620,000 per house. But after buying 833 properties, the government had spent an average $703,300. The government had modelled a "worst-case scenario" of $750,000 per house.
Dr Cooper said maintenance, demolition and disposal costs remained uncertain, as did land sales.
Demolition costs were over targets, but within the range of estimates. The prices for land sales depended on how many owners decided to buy their land back and how many were eligible to rent their land.
Overall, the financial modelling was "adequate, in that it provided a prudent range of expected financial outcomes".
Financial management and risk management was effective.
"Despite being established and becoming operational within a very short space of time, the taskforce has mature and practical arrangements in place, to the extent that risk management is embedded into its daily processes," she said.
