Monday 31 August 2009

IT'S OFFICIAL: SIHIP, THE PROGRAM FOR REMOTE ABORIGINAL HOUSING, FAILED


Click on picture above to enlarge



Reports are coming through from contacts in the Northern Territory that a review of SIHIP (Strategic Housing and Infrastructure Program)may be about to be released.  The short version is that the document does not give the program a good report.  Does this mean the Project Managers, Parsons Brinkerhoff, are regarding as not having a good report as well?  It is to be hoped that the report (if the Minister releases it publicly) gives us reasons for the failure.  The housing delivery model is through a series of "Alliances" a model favoured by Parsons Brinkerhoff.  I just hope that it is not an opportunity for scapegoating by either the Federal or NT Governments.  Parson Brinkerhoff has already taken its scalp.

From Koori Mail

Remote housing scheme struggling: report

Federal Indigenous Affairs Minister Jenny Macklin.31 August 2009
A REPORT into a $672 million scheme to build houses for Indigenous people in the Northern Territory has found it was behind schedule, over-administered and unlikely to produce the promised number of houses. Federal Indigenous Affairs Minister Jenny Macklin released the review of the Strategic Indigenous Housing and Infrastructure Program (SIHIP) today, saying improvements were already underway.
From the ABC

'Lack of effective oversight' in Aboriginal housing

13 August 2014

Seems that Parsons Brinckerhoff has form in ripping off taxpayers money.  Please see this report.  Aren't these bastions of free enterprise and unfettered capitalism marvellous.  If they are so marvellous, why do they need taxpayers money to keep themselves in the style to which they, clearly, have become accustomed.  And what price our governments who are incapable of challenging these people and their tender information?


MissEagle
racism-free
Photobucket

No comments:

Post a Comment

This blog does not take Anonymous comments. Experience shows that comments cluttered with "Anonymous" are boring and people don't know whether "Anonymous" is one person or many. This is not a decision about freedom of speech. It is a decision about boring or unwillingness to be known by even a pseudonym.

Total Pageviews