Shayne Neumann (Blair, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Indigenous Affairs) Share this | Hansard source

The budget ceases the National Partnership Agreement on Remote Indigenous Housing and a $5.5 billion investment which was not due to expire until 2018. It is a significant amount of funding—about $1.3 billion available to be rolled out over the remaining years of the agreement.

The 2014 progress review of the National Partnership Agreement on Remote Indigenous Housing reported more than 1,600 new houses and 5,200 refurbishments have been completed between 2008 and 2013. States and territories have continued to achieve and exceed targets for construction and refurbishment, with another 531 new houses constructed and 839 refurbishments completed in 2013-14. The government will replace the national partnership agreement with a new remote Indigenous housing strategy over three years, totalling $1.1 billion, according to the budget.

Can the parliamentary secretary confirm how many new houses have been constructed and how many refurbishments have been completed under the National Partnership Agreement on Remote Indigenous Housing? What were the construction targets for the remaining years of the agreement? How many houses and refurbishments are states and territories required to complete by 2018, under the government's new remote Indigenous housing strategy?

Of great concern is the redirection of $95 million associated with the existing national partnership agreement to fund reform of the Remote Jobs and Communities Program. Indigenous households are more than three times as likely to be overcrowded. The 2011 ABS census on population and housing reported that around 24,700 Indigenous households were considered to be overcrowded. This equates to 115,600 people, or about one in four Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people living in overcrowded accommodation. Approximately 60.4 per cent of Aboriginal households in remote parts of the Northern Territory are subject to overcrowding.

The problems associated with chronic overcrowding in remote communities are well documented. It is concerning that the government has ripped $95 million from the national partnership agreement, given the serious ongoing issues of overcrowding in remote communities. I suppose it should come as no surprise that funding should be ripped away from remote community investment after the Prime Minister described the right of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people to live on their traditional lands as a 'lifestyle choice' that should be not be subsidised by taxpayers' money. It follows the decision of this government to cut federal funds for essential and municipal services in remote communities across the country and to hand that responsibility to the states and territories.

Parliamentary Secretary, why is the $95 million being cut from the Indigenous remote housing investment? How will reducing funding for remote housing reduce overcrowding in remote communities? Strangely, the new remote housing strategy will fund housing for employment related accommodation not in remote communities but in regional and urban areas—I don't quite get that one. How many houses will actually be constructed in remote communities, as was is intended in the national partnership agreement? And how much of the $1.1 billion for remote housing will now be spent on housing outside of remote communities?

See this speech in context