Natasha Griggs (Solomon, Country Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The purpose of my private member's motion is threefold. Firstly, it notes that Darwin, and indeed the Northern Territory, is currently experiencing the worst housing crisis since Cyclone Tracy and that the Minister for Defence Science and Personnel, the member for Lingiari, supports the plans to demolish or remove 396 houses at Eaton—or as the locals know it, RAAF Base Winnellie. Secondly, it notes the significant adverse impact the demolition or removal of these houses will have on the local community, the local school and the local businesses. Thirdly, it calls on the Gillard Labor government to take action by excising the Darwin suburb of Eaton from RAAF Base Darwin; handing over the 396 houses currently managed by the Department of Defence in Eaton to Defence Housing Australia; and, as a matter of priority, directing DHA to develop and implement a business plan that would determine the percentage of the 396 houses in Eaton that could be made available for lease or on-sale to the local community in order to help address the critical housing shortage.

It is well over 12 months since I first publicly raised this issue in an attempt to stop the lunacy of this Labor government demolishing 396 perfectly good houses at RAAF Base Darwin. I promised Territorians that if I were elected I would continue to fight to make these houses available to Territorians. True to my word, I raised this issue the first day I came to this place, and I have raised it at every opportunity I have had in this place. Territorians cannot understand why this Labor government insists on having these houses sitting there vacant, especially when people are sleeping in cars or on the streets because of the housing crisis. Everyone knows that the Northern Territory is one of the most expensive places to live in Australia. Territorians tell me every day that they feel like this government has comprehensively failed to address the cost-of-living pressures on Australians, particularly Territorians.

I asked Minister Snowdon, a fellow Territorian, a number of times on behalf of the people of Solomon to make these 396 houses available for Territorians. I pleaded with him not to leave them vacant. We all know how houses that are left vacant deteriorate, and that is exactly what is happening right now. These houses are slowly rotting away. It is a complete waste of taxpayer funded resources. No-one likes to see waste, especially such a blatant example of waste. Territorians are outraged. They see with the eye of common sense but fail to understand why this issue remains unresolved and why these houses continue to sit vacant. I have been talking to some of my colleagues in this place and they also cannot understand why these houses are sitting vacant, and they have indicated their support for my motion.

During the 2010 election campaign, Territorians were told by this Labor government that the houses were to be demolished or removed because the Joint Strike Fighters were to be based at RAAF Winnellie and that the noise from these planes would have an adverse effect on the RAAF houses and that, supposedly, the noise would not impact the industrial area or the private houses right next door. How does that work? Embarrassingly for this government, the Department of Defence came out and corrected the record. The JSFs were not going to be housed at RAAF Winnellie at all; therefore, the noise from the planes was irrelevant. Defence further corrected the record by stating that their 396 houses do not meet the new Defence Housing standards and that this was one of the factors the houses were recommended for removal or demolition. This is what Territorians are so upset about. The new Defence Housing standards will not be implemented until 2016—five years away. Although these houses do not meet future defence housing standards, many Territorians would love the opportunity to live in or own one of these houses. They do not want them sitting there vacant. It is important to use these houses, and that is what I have said from day one: let's use these houses. This government, by keeping these houses vacant, continues to send a message to Territorians that this government stands for waste and mismanagement. One of the excuses I was given was that Defence personnel want to live in southern style houses. How practical is that in the tropics? I understand that Defence Housing Australia is now building tropical style houses. If we give these houses to DHA they are going to have 396 tropically designed houses already in their stock. DHA has experience in successfully building communities that integrate both Defence and civilian families. Why should Eaton be any different? (Time expired)

Laurie Ferguson (Werriwa, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

An interesting story, but I think the situation is a little bit more complex. At the outset we should note the importance of Defence to the Northern Territory. A recent estimate was that $800 million a year of gross state product in the Northern Territory stems from the defence department presence. I think we have to be cognisant that at any one time it is important they have a degree of latitude in thinking the way forward with regard to their presence. Whilst the previous speaker had a throwaway line conceding that there had been some construction by the current government of housing up there, it is perhaps more noteworthy that 185 of those houses for defence personnel come under the government's nation-building economic stimulus program—a policy thrust that was opposed by the opposition. So we should remember that when they lament the sad state of housing, which of course is pronounced there. There is obviously a high demand in the Northern Territory because of other aspects of their economy. We know that around the world and in Australia there has been a drying-up of finance by the banking system to the building sector and there are problems. But before we start getting too excited about the problems there, we should perhaps concede that the current government has been extremely active with regard to public housing, social housing, opposed by the opposition again in New South Wales.

It is not as though the defence department is sitting on its hands doing nothing. There has been construction of 381 houses in Darwin, including 338 in the new suburb of Lyons, and there is further construction occurring. It is also important to note that defence personnel have been voting with their feet with regard to the use of this housing. Despite the offer of it, people just will not take it. One has to question how suitable it might be for other people, no matter how lamentable the housing shortage is. In actual fact it is offered to defence personnel and currently 50 per cent of the houses at RAAF Darwin are vacant, for a number of reasons. Some are vacant due to the posting cycle; others are due to routine repair requirements and, more particularly, major upgrades and repairs and the reality that demolition is the only option for some of that housing.

The minister has not been inactive. He has sought an answer from the Department of Defence as to what the long-term aims are. Minister Snowdon has noted that there is an expectation that the government will be able to provide more information about the outcomes of this review quite shortly. It is not a matter of just handing over what has been regarded by the defence personnel themselves—not by the minister, not by major authorities in the defence forces but individual soldiers themselves—as inadequate housing. I really question whether housing of that sort is really the solution to the shortages in the Northern Territory. It is defence land and defence might have other options for the land. It might sound like a very nice idea, a bit of sloganeering, a bit of political self-interest to demand that it be turned over for public housing, but its location and the long-term requirements of the defence department itself should be a major consideration here. It might be required to be used for different purposes. I also understand that some of it has been offered at various stages to the Northern Territory government and the Department of Families, Health, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs and, surprisingly, they have expressed a very strong lack of interest in taking responsibility for this land. I would think that, given the fact that the minister has indicated that he will be making a response to the review in the near future, given the fact that much of this housing has been found to be unsatisfactory by defence personnel, given the paramount requirement that defence's long-term considerations are part of the decision making there, this motion is inappropriate.

Stuart Robert (Fadden, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Defence Science, Technology and Personnel) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

When it comes to defence housing, as at 31 October last year, the DHA owned or had a lease for 15,770 houses. By virtue of history, and anachronistically, defence still owned 2,383 houses. The vast majority of those were then managed by DHA. Of those 2,383 houses owned by defence, 678 are at Alice Springs. Defence owns them and DHA manages them. We all know that defence does not do well in managing housing. DHA is set up as a statutory authority and is the professional housing manager. It manages over 15,500 houses. The question has to be asked: why is defence continuing to hold on to 2,383 houses? I can see why the government is hesitant to hand them over, especially with 81 of them at Inverbrackie being turned into an asylum seeker detention facility due to the lack of accommodation because of the government's botched attempt to try to stop the boats. Indeed, all it has done is seen over 250 boats and over 12,000 people come to our shores seeking asylum.

I can see why the government are super keen to retain defence housing under the Department of Defence rather than under DHA—not to assist defence members per se but perhaps to build on what they have done at Inverbrackie. This motion, moved by the member for Solomon, quite rightly calls on the professional housing manager, DHA, which has over 15,500 houses under its management, to control and own all of the stock, which includes the 2,383 houses that defence currently has. This will require those 678 houses in Darwin to be handed over to DHA. This motion raises particular concern with respect to the 396 houses at Eaton. Defence conducted a strategic review into all of its property in Darwin in 2009, and Minister Warren Snowdon, in a press release, concluded:

… that there is a continuing strategic need to retain the housing land at RAAF Base Darwin to accommodate future Defence capability and contingency needs.

That may well be the case, although the report was due to be released in early 2011 and it has not been, so it is very hard for the community to work out what this Labor government is doing. It promised to release a report and, surprise, surprise, it has not released it.

As of June last year, of those 396 houses at Eaton, 102 were empty. Presumably, the number is now higher. Currently, Territorians are experiencing a house vacancy rate of four per cent. The median house price in inner Darwin is $760,000. The median rental price for a three-bedroom house is $526. Territorians are living on the street, living in cars because this government will not listen to the local representative, the member for Solomon, who is pleading for these empty houses—over 100 of them—which have now been empty for over 12 months, to be made available to local Territorians. This government talks of social justice as if it knows something about it but, when the single greatest opportunity is here for it to demonstrate justice and love for a community, it is found desperately wanting.

The member for Solomon has stood here on numerous occasions in this place and pleaded with this stone-hearted, cold government, saying, 'Over 100 houses are available; please help Territorians.' That is what a good local member does: she stands up for her community for what is right and what is just, as opposed to this government which does not heed the calls of the local Territorians so her pleas fall on deaf ears.

Eaton is 3½ kilometres from the city, and the nearest primary school, at Ludmilla, is 400 metres away. This housing area of Eaton feeds a lot of children into that primary school, and, for that primary school to continue to be vibrant and viable, Eaton housing is an important component. It is important to support the local Winnellie business owners and to rebuild a vibrant inner-city community. The golf course is also part of the area around there, as is the childcare centre. The bottom line is that there are over 100 houses empty, built in a style that is particular to Darwin and a style that I note the DHA is spearheading at the Muirhead development. They are using the same style—the style of houses at Eaton. The defence personnel want to use Eaton because it is close to the base. With over 100 houses available that DHA is able to either sell and rent back from the community or lease to the community, the member for Solomon quite rightly calls on the government, as a responsible member does, to provide options for this housing to the community. I support the member for Solomon for her work.

Bernie Ripoll (Oxley, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I completely disagree with this motion. I think that the contributions from the member for Solomon and the member for Fadden have nothing to do with defence housing, with people living on the street or with the housing crisis in the Northern Territory. They are nothing more than cheap politics. The reality is that there is a housing crisis in the Northern Territory, but what is being proposed in this private member's motion does absolutely nothing to address that, nor does it do anything to address the concerns of military personnel. Unlike both those members, over the past decade and more I have spent some time working in this area with the Defence Housing Authority and in particular in the Northern Territory. One thing that we learned when we went through a whole range of defence housing homes is that defence personnel vote with their feet. They make the decisions, and they ought to get the same standard as is expected right across the community, not substandard housing.

The reality is that there are a number of issues with the houses in Darwin, particularly those that are on the base, not least the security of the base in terms of how they are managed and developed. The Defence Housing Authority has already moved a number of the homes that are capable of being moved off site. That is already being done. There are a number of solutions. Those that can be done are being done. Currently about 50 per cent of the houses at RAAF Base Darwin are vacant, but they are vacant for several reasons. Some are in the posting cycle, so they are going to be vacant. Others are scheduled for routine repairs, major repairs, upgrades or demolition, and the ageing condition of many of the properties makes them uneconomical to repair or otherwise to upgrade. It should also be noted that other vacant housing is available for selection by ADF personnel, and they choose houses of a high standard or high quality, which they ought to have.

A lot of work has been done by the Public Works Committee to make sure of funding and a lot of work has been done by members of this House on both sides to make sure that ADF personnel are properly looked after and given the sort of standard in housing that is expected right across the community. In fact, we have already moved a number of houses from Larrakeyah, with 61 houses being moved off site and saved from demolition. Where it can be done it will be done, but it needs to be done in an economical manner and in a manner that meets community and building standards and housing standards. Defence has also approached the Northern Territory government and the Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs to determine their interest—whether they would be prepared to take some of this up—but unfortunately both organisations have advised that at this stage they are not interested in acquiring the houses. Perhaps the members for Solomon and Fadden could do some more work in that area. Leasing any of these houses to the public would also require an increase in defence personnel and resources to manage the required agreements when they were moved off site.

Mr Robert interjecting—

Perhaps the member for Fadden would like to work for DHA. He would probably do a better job than the whole department would, because he certainly feels that he is better placed, having lived in one of the houses.

The government also has a plan for housing in Darwin. We expect to make announcements soon about RAAF Base Darwin houses, as we have done for a lot of years to ensure that defence personnel, whether they are based in Darwin, in the Northern Territory, or based in Tasmania, in Sydney or in RAAF Base Amberley, in Queensland, just in my backyard—wherever they are—get a better or equal community standard of housing, housing that you would expect for any other family in the community.

I do not see why there should be an argument on the other side to give them substandard housing, to force them into empty houses which they clearly do not want to occupy. I find that quite offensive. I think Defence Force personnel should have those options, and they certainly do under this government. It has been long held, regardless of who was in government, that we all work to the benefit of Defence Force personnel to make sure that the standard of the houses they live in is not that of houses of 20 years ago. They are modern, decent homes that are built to a community standard which is currently acceptable. When you read through the private member's motion from the member for Solomon—and I understand that she is a new member of the House—the reality of the motion does not do anything for either Defence Force personnel—

Opposition members interjecting—

I can just tell by the catcalling and all of the other insults that are coming from the other side that they are very defensive. They got their opportunity to speak on this and put their view, and I am putting my view. My view is that we ought to look after Defence Force personnel, not force them into substandard housing. All this motion is about is cheap politics.

John Murphy (Reid, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The time allotted for the debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.