Laura Smyth (La Trobe, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

What an extraordinary contribution to follow. Apparently, not only are we responsible for everything on our own agenda; we are responsible when the member for Hughes does not turn up to vote. That old turning-up-to-vote chestnut on a Constitutional matter probably would have helped your cause and we may have needed fewer contributions to a grievance debate. I tend not to take the contributions from the member for Hughes particularly seriously, and I will just get on with my own. This grievance debate is really quite a curious instrument of the House. It sounds a bit archaic, which is perhaps fitting in the context of the matters that I am about to raise as grievances in a report to the House. Obviously, all of us here come to this place with views that reflect our experiences, our outlook on life and our philosophical position on important issues. Needless to say, often those world views differ quite substantially. It is an unusual type of person who comes to parliament with a desire to stop the discussion and debate of ideas in the broader community. So this debate is an appropriate place for me to raise a grievance about the actions of conservative governments right around the country which seek to limit the opportunity for elected representatives to speak with their communities and which seek to limit the opportunity for organisations to criticise government.

Over the weekend, in my home state of Victoria, two of my colleagues—one state and one candidate for federal office—were out in their local community speaking to residents about the whole range of local, state and federal issues that inevitably, and rightly, are raised with all of us when we go out to street stalls and street corner meetings or are door-knocking or holding community events. This time, however, those particular colleagues were prevented by security guards from entering a Collingwood high-rise where they had intended to speak to local electors. It has been reported that the security guards were acting on the advice of the Office of Housing from the state Department of Human Services.

I would say that this was quite an extraordinary situation, were it not for the fact that the same kinds of restrictions seem to be being applied in a slightly different context by other conservative governments around this country. The guidelines in question that restricted the movement and the capacity of my colleagues to go and speak to public housing tenants were put in place by the Baillieu-Napthine government in relation to certain types of public housing. One can only conclude that this is all about trying to shut down debate, discussion and community information. It is very much to be regretted, and I would call on Victorian opposition members in this place to encourage their state colleagues and the Victorian Minister for Housing to reverse this decision. It is a very bad precedent. It stymies public discussion and it is an incredibly petty political measure.

So what is it that conservatives do not want Labor people to talk about with public housing tenants—and, indeed, anyone else? Could it be the fact that our government has directly contributed to the construction of one in every 20 new homes since coming to office through measures such as a $6 billion investment in social housing, which is delivering over 21,000 social housing homes right across the nation? Could it be the $4.5 billion National Rental Affordability Scheme, which provides incentive payments to the private sector to build 50,000 affordable rental homes? Could it be the fact that we are making an unprecedented investment of more than $20 billion to address housing supply and affordability issues?

Perhaps they would rather that we did not mention that the federal coalition ripped $3.1 billion out of the housing budget and actually voted against the building of 20,000 new homes the last time they had a chance to support affordable housing. Perhaps it is the fact that this government provides over $3 billion annually in Commonwealth rent assistance, which assists over 1.1 million Australians to pay their rent. All of these are things that, presumably, could have been spoken about by representatives going to visit residents in their community and talk to them about public policy issues and the whole range of other issues that constituents rightly raise with us as representatives and prospective representatives.

Alternatively, I guess they might not want us to talk about the 37,000 people who are waiting for housing in Victoria, or perhaps they do not want us to have the conversation about the Victorian government having provided no new funding for building new housing since coming to office in 2010. Perhaps it is that they do not want us to talk about the Victorian government's failure to rule out selling off public housing. Perhaps it is that they do not want us to talk about threatened increases to rents and limitations to the time that people can stay in public housing in Victoria or the fact that the Victorian government has cut frontline staff who support some of the most vulnerable people in our community. Indeed, the Victorian government has slashed funding to the Social Housing Advocacy and Support Program by around $2.8 million. All of these things, I imagine, would have been slightly uncomfortable to have raised, amongst the range of other things that those representatives could have spoken about.

But, ultimately, I guess it is not all that surprising based on previous forms. Many would remember that a comparable approach was taken by the Howard government in relation to the gagging of community service providers.

See this speech in context