Rebekha Sharkie (Mayo, Nick Xenophon Team) Share this | Hansard source

I give my gratitude to the member for Barton for this important motion on the National Partnership on Remote Housing. As members may remember, in question time on 6 February this year I asked the government to explain why they appeared to be abandoning their commitment to the National Partnership on Remote Housing, which delivers housing security to Indigenous Australians. Two days later Minister Scullion wrote to the governments of Western Australia, Queensland and the Northern Territory to discuss future arrangements for the funding for remote housing, and I am grateful to the federal government for this timely coincidence.

Approximately half of Indigenous Australians in remote areas live in overcrowded housing, with some three-bedroom homes containing as many as 17 occupants. In contrast, only five per cent of non-Indigenous Australians live in overcrowded housing. In his response to my question, the minister representing the Minister for Indigenous Affairs, the honourable member for Hasluck, highlighted the success of the funding, indicating that there was 'a 15 per cent reduction in overcrowding in the four jurisdictions it affected'. So, there appears to be no dispute at all as to the overall general efficacy of the program that is being implemented, although I will have more to say on that. The minister spoke of the government's willingness to engage in equal partnership, calling on the states to equally commit to matching Commonwealth funding. Now I think it is right and proper that states and the Northern Territory contribute to housing for remote Indigenous communities within their jurisdiction. Indeed, all the remote housing partnership states do directly fund community housing programs for remote Indigenous Australians.

But none of this lessens the federal government's concurrent responsibility for Indigenous Australians. States and territories have varying capacity to rapidly secure the additional funds required to induce matched funding from the federal government. So if any of the states or the Northern Territory cannot raise the additional money, the federal government can hold itself out as not being responsible for real cuts to expenditure. However, I want to give the federal government the benefit of the doubt. There is still time to make good on this future funding.

South Australian state government finances are in a troubling state, so even a 50 per cent reduction in federal government funding would mean at least a $120 million funding cut for the program over the next 10 years. Without this funding, South Australia, along with Western Australia, the Northern Territory and Queensland, will have to consider cuts to other elements of their budget, an outcome that would not bode well for Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians alike. None of this should let the states and territories off the hook. As per a recommendation of the 2017 Remote Housing Review, there should eventually be a fifty-fifty cost split between the federal government and the states and territories, but an orderly transition is what is needed.

I would like to briefly turn to the other recommendations in the Remote Housing Review. The review made 12 key recommendations, and I urge the federal government to heed all of them. But, in particular, a minimum five-year rolling plan for the program should be established. This will create the funding certainty necessary to retain strategic momentum and talent in the program's workforces. And a higher level of transparency should be implemented. This means that a sound performance framework for this program needs to be established and published as well as the results against the framework.

In closing, I would strongly urge the federal government to maintain funding for the National Partnership on Remote Housing and to implement, in an orderly fashion, over time, shared funding arrangements with the states and territories. Together, all levels of government must show leadership and cooperation if we are to meaningfully close the gap.

See this speech in context