Linda Burney (Barton, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That this House:

This motion is in four parts. It observes the national partnership remote housing program. It notes that it expires on 30 June this year, which makes this motion very urgent. It also recognises many aspects of the program, including additional houses and what it means in terms of employment. It acknowledges that the loss of funding would mean jobs going at a local level. It also acknowledges that, without this funding, there is not only an implication for less housing; there's an implication for what it means for overcrowded housing in Indigenous communities. It also talks about the responsibilities in terms of closing the gap. Most importantly, this motion calls on the government to urgently restore the commitment to this program. It also calls on the government to recommit to a further 10 years of the program.

I rise to speak about this strategy. Ten years ago the Rudd government launched its $5.8 billion program to help address the overcrowding and homelessness, and poor housing conditions, in remote and rural areas, essentially in First Nations people communities. Without continued support of funding from the government, this strategy, as I mentioned earlier, is due to expire in June 2018. It has delivered 11,500 homes and contributed to a significant decrease in overcrowding in rural and remote Australia. The number of overcrowded houses dropped from 52.1 per cent in 2008 to 41.3 per cent in 2014-15, and the expected drop is to 37 per cent this year. By these measures alone, the strategy has been a success. These findings are supported from the government's own review into the agreement released last year.

I want to address the issue of discrete Aboriginal communities in Queensland. In Queensland alone, the agreement has delivered 1,150 new homes and refurbished about the same number, well beyond the initial targets set. It's also been a great generator of local jobs and apprenticeships, with 800 trainees and apprentices in Queensland alone. Local businesses and organisations benefit too, and their participation was projected to rise from 10 per cent in 2011 to 70 per cent in 2017. This is a success story, and I just don't understand why there wouldn't be a continued commitment at a federal level to sustaining this program. It seems that the federal government has decided to cost-shift to the state governments almost entirely, and we know that there has been little discussion about this.

I don't need to explain in great detail the importance of housing. We know it creates functioning social units. It provides a fixed address, which means people can get things like registration and driver's licences and register their SIM card for a mobile phone. It's very important, particularly for people on Centrelink payments who are enrolling and seeking a jobseeker program, to have a fixed address. The importance of a home in building a strong and self-sufficient community cannot be understated. Housing provides shelter, privacy, safety and security. It provides better health and education outcomes. It also impacts on the workforce, provides protection and shelter, and negates very significant physical and mental health issues. These are the sorts of things that guaranteed housing can provide.

I want to address the issue of overcrowding. I have seen reports from rural and regional Queensland that up to 30 people living in a single house is not unheard of. These numbers in single houses mean poor access to hygiene health. It provides intolerable conditions. It also means there is not regular access to hot water, functioning sewerage systems and working washing machines, as well as the electricity supply. Daily tasks we take for granted—showering, washing clothes, washing bedding, removing household waste and the ability to cook and prepare food hygienically—are things that guarantee safety. If this housing program is not continued, that is what we are risking.

The government's report notes an increase in leprosy and tuberculosis among remote Indigenous communities in Western Australia and other parts of remote Northern Australia. This happens at a rate that is seven times higher than it is for non-Indigenous people. Those things cannot be allowed to continue. That is why this program is so important.

I have extensive notes on case studies, which, given the time that I have, I won't go into. But I want to say that we need to take into account the increasing population rates of Indigenous communities in remote areas. Half of this need for additional dwellings is in the Northern Territory. We also need to provide support in overcrowded places that aren't considered remote—places like Yarrabah, in Queensland, or Elliott in the NT. Those places need to be considered. I have extensive notes on maintenance and return on investment, which are absolutely crucial in relation to the importance of this particular housing program. Maintenance of toilets, taps and other fixtures is a small thing which we take for granted. When you've got overcrowding, there is a great strain on maintenance.

There is also a great strain on investment. A $5.4 billion investment is lost if remote housing is not recognised as a government priority, as well as, of course, the call to action that we are making in relation to Closing the Gap targets. This housing partnership helps local economies and provides local jobs and traineeships. All of those things are being risked. I understand that the program cannot cover all housing outcomes and I understand that there are complex funding arrangements from various states and territories, but the federal government cannot walk away from its responsibility in this area. This goes to the heart of what I'm talking about. This motion also addresses issues around domestic violence and child safety, which are pretty obvious if you do not have reasonable and dignified housing.

Assistance for remote Indigenous housing has been in place since at least 1968 through a number of state and federal government initiatives. We are calling for this $5.8 billion program to be committed to for another 10 years. It is showing success. It is one of those programs where, if you don't continue, that success that I've outlined will absolutely disappear. It just does not make any sense, if you want to address some of the fundamental issues existing in Indigenous communities, that you would not continue to support such a program. In 2008 the target for the strategy was 4,200 new homes; 4,020 homes were built. The target for refurbishing homes was 4,800, and just over 7,500 have been refurbished. That is success. That is success, so why stop it now?

I urge this government to restore its commitment to this program. The Indigenous community needs this program to build new dwellings, as does the broader Australian community, in terms of investment and addressing those really fundamental issues that I've outlined in moving this private member's motion. We need this program to maintain and refurbish existing dwellings and double down on our existing investments. Secure housing is a key element in last year's Closing the gap report. Indigenous people have poorer housing outcomes than other Australians. Continuing to fund this program brings us closer to those goals. It is not about who is on what side of the chamber and who sits in the Independent seats. This is a program that has demonstrated success. The government in its own review recognises that success. We need this program to continue to reduce overcrowding and provide, as I've outlined, many of the basic human rights that we all enjoy.

Lucy Wicks (Robertson, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is there a seconder for this motion?

Emma Husar (Lindsay, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I second the motion. This government has fought, since the last budget was delivered, for a $65 billion corporate tax cut for millions of multinational businesses that absolutely do not need it. They will not provide any assurances on this private member's motion that's been moved by my colleague the hardworking member for Barton, Linda Burney, on what we actually need in this country, which is housing for our first-nations people.

Every single one of us has the right to a stable house, to a house where health and safety are an absolute priority. You cannot walk into this place and say that you support Indigenous communities or you support the reduction of family violence when—imagine for one second—three or four people are living in one bedroom, or 15 people are living in one three-bedroom house with one toilet, which is the current case for many of our first-nations people in remote and discrete communities right around this country. Proper, affordable and well-maintained housing is a right. It is not a privilege; it is an absolute right; otherwise, what are we doing as a country?

It seems that we are about to witness another failure by this government with public hand-wringing and placing the issue vital to all Australians in the far-too-hard basket. Linda Burney, the member for Barton, has rightfully highlighted the gross inequality and hypocrisy that are on full display here. We need to discuss a problem that has affected countless lives, fostered resentment, fostered increased drug and alcohol abuse and torn families apart.

The National Partnership on Remote Housing is an agreement that has the potential to give Indigenous people in remote and discrete communities a chance to improve and take control of their own lives, something that everybody welcomes and something that I think, by and large, everybody supports. But, if you've got a program that's about to expire on 30 June and no promises or forecasts in the budget estimates to say that you're going to keep funding it, what kind of insecure tenure are these people on? What kind of agreement have you actually made? You've made no agreement. You've made no promises to do anything different. You are simply stringing it out and hoping that no-one's going to notice while the states and territories fight it out with the Commonwealth. This needs to be something that we all agree to, something that we do moving forward, not keeping these people living in limbo. The partnership needs to reflect local cultural factors and sensitivities. We're yet to hear from the government whether the agreement will be extended. What we see in this area right now is confusion and differences between all of the agencies.

The Turnbull government's own housing review—a review they released just before Christmas last year—said that there's already a shortfall of 5½ thousand homes in the national partnership agreement, although some have the figures as high as 36,000 short. The New South Wales Aboriginal Housing Office says that the current undersupply of Aboriginal housing stands at 36,025 dwellings. I'm not holding my breath for a New South Wales Liberal government to prioritise Aboriginal housing over their $2.7 billion stadium rebuild, which is a disgrace. The review predicts that this undersupply will increase to about 90,000 in 2031 if we sit on our hands and do nothing. It might be convenient for this government to flash around $65 billion in corporate tax cuts, but if we leave this festering as the sore that it is it's only going to get worse. In the Northern Territory, with a population of about 200,000 people, media reports have estimated the need for about 2,000 to 5,000 properties, and the state of the existing stock does not a pretty picture make.

Today we welcomed women from the Tangentyere Women's Family Safety Group, which is a group of town camp women who live in Alice Springs and all kinds of town camp arrangements. They are from all the town camps, and they are represented in big numbers. They came here today to talk to us about domestic violence affecting their communities. We know that Aboriginal women are 32 times as likely as non-Aboriginal women to experience violence. If we have nowhere to take these women after crisis and if we have no transitional homes—there is already a shortage of homes for people who are not escaping domestic violence—where do these women go? They go to the local refuge. The local refuge can offer a woman escaping family violence three nights and, on that refuge's own admission, those women can be exited into homelessness. That is not a solution. That is not a fix. That is not doing anyone any favours, and it is certainly not helping women out of a dangerous situation.

It is an absolute disgrace that this government has not committed this funding, and I would ask that Malcolm Turnbull, the Prime Minister, and Minister Scullion take immediate steps to ensure the continuation of funding for remote and Indigenous housing. Failure to do so will be another example of a government that is too out of touch—and I'm not sure that they ever had the touch, to be quite frank—and concerned only with their internal disputes rather than the living arrangements of people in remote Indigenous communities. In those houses, where there's overcrowding, health becomes an issue. I know as a mum with four people living in the house that if you get an outbreak of gastroenteritis in the house and you don't sanitise everything and wash it down then everyone's sick. So, this is urgent, and I urge the government to act immediately.

Rebekha Sharkie (Mayo, Nick Xenophon Team) Share this | Link to 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.

Warren Snowdon (Lingiari, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for External Territories) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Recently, I attended an Indigenous housing forum in Darwin with first nations representatives from right across the Northern Territory. We were there to discuss issues to do with housing in their communities and their concerns about the lack of government funding and support—in particular, the failure of the current government here in Canberra to renegotiate the National Partnership on Remote Housing. This has particular resonance in the Northern Territory because, of all the remote housing needs across Australia, almost half are in the Northern Territory alone. Whilst the Commonwealth's review estimated 5,500 houses in the shortfall will reduce overcrowding to 15 to 30 per cent of what it is for the general population, the number needed if we are to get equity, so that overcrowding in the first nations communities is the same as the rest of the community, is close to 6,500 dwellings.

In the context of the Northern Territory, the Northern Territory Labor government has committed itself to put forward $1.1 billion over a decade for Indigenous housing in remote communities. In addition to that, there's $500 million for preparatory works, groundworks et cetera. There was a valid expectation, because of discussions they'd had with Minister Scullion, that this funding would be matched by the Commonwealth. And, indeed, Minister Scullion told the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory that he would be looking to fund on an equivalent basis. Not long after, the Prime Minister tells us that, in fact, that's not to be the case. The very best that's being offered to the Northern Territory at the moment is a guarantee of funding for two years. Of course, that falls far short of the mark. If we're ever to address the issue of overcrowded, inadequate and inappropriate housing in remote communities, we need the funds allocated.

Whilst it's a simplistic notion to say you can build a house, if you build new houses and provide appropriate, safe and secure accommodation for Aboriginal communities across the country, you'll have a dramatic improvement on health outcomes for First Australians. That, to me, is really what this is about. It's not a debate that should be had just about money; it's a debate that should be had about what we see as our priorities in closing the gap in Indigenous mortality rates, life expectancy et cetera. If we are fair dinkum about closing these gaps, what we need to do is understand the importance of the social determinants of health and the primary importance of providing adequate housing. If we don't provide adequate housing, we will not address the underlying issues involved in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander health. I speak particularly of rheumatic heart disease, renal failure and diabetes—the sorts of lifestyle diseases that come, in many parts, as a result of overcrowding.

We need to make sure that this government and the broader community understand that this is not an esoteric debate just about numbers. This is a debate about the reality of the lives of everyday Australians living now in areas where, in some cases, as the former speaker said, there are 17 to a house. I know of communities where there are 25 and 30 people to a house. It is simply unsustainable, yet we're not getting the response we should expect from the federal government, which claims that it's looking after the interests of all Australians. And what I do know is that the people who attended this conference in Darwin were very concerned about the failure of the federal government to respond adequately.

It was also clear, and this is part of the evidence which we've now seen—I don't believe that the Turnbull government has sufficient data on first-nation housing needs and the precise funding requirements. I think it's a very contested space, but what I do know is that there is a gross underestimation of what the liability is. Unless that liability is properly addressed and accepted in the first instance, and sufficient money allocated for providing housing through national partnership agreements—I have no issue about states making a contribution. They ought to. That's not the issue here. The issue here is making sure there is a partnership which provides adequate housing to meet the needs of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. My colleague from Herbert, I'm sure, will speak about Palm Island, which has particular issues and needs.

The bottom line is that we need these national partnership agreements to be re-established. We need the Commonwealth to commit to funding Aboriginal housing—first-nation housing—across this country and to live up to the expectations of the community to improve the life outcomes for Aboriginal and Torres Strait islander people.

Cathy O'Toole (Herbert, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I support this motion brought forward by the member for Barton, the honourable Linda Burney. What an absolute disgrace this Turnbull government is. Not only has this government ignored the calls from the Statement from the Heart at Uluru, but now this government is making savage cuts to the national partnership on remote housing. If this government were serious about closing the gap, it certainly would not be cutting $245 million of funding over two years to a program in Queensland that is a huge success. In Queensland alone, the National Partnership Agreement on Remote Housing includes the delivery of approximately 1,150 homes, approximately 1,500 refurbishments, as well as maintenance for almost 4,300 houses over a 10-year period. This partnership has created a large number of local jobs, particularly in Queensland, for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people.

As outlined in the Remote housing review, Queensland leads the nation in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander employment for projects funded through the National Partnership Agreement on Remote Housing—to the tune of 87 per cent in recent years. This achievement is well beyond the 20 per cent target that was set for all states under the NPARH, and it is well above the next best state's result of 47 per cent. In Queensland, 16 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander local governments and businesses delivered nearly 80 per cent of the value of all new housing construction projects in their local communities, a huge improvement on the historic norm of 10 per cent, as well as 80 per cent of minor works and repairs. And over the last 10 years, the total number of employment opportunities funded through the NPARH has been 2,640. That's concreters, plumbers, carpenters, electricians, roofers, labourers, painters, tilers and cabinet-makers. Today, the National Partnership Agreement on Remote Housing supports the ongoing employment of over 850 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander employees, apprentices and trainees, and seven of those apprentices live in my electorate of Herbert, on Palm Island.

These cuts will result in these seven apprentices losing their jobs, as well as thousands of jobs in regional Queensland, not to mention the impact on small business. Remote Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities already face severe housing overcrowding and job challenges. My life my lead, released in December 2017, cites adequate housing as a significant contributor to developing strong, healthy children who grow into healthy adults and, thus, can lead long and fulfilling lives. When we talk about housing, particularly in remote regions, it's very important to understand the cultural obligation and humanitarian need for Indigenous Queenslanders to welcome extended families into their homes. Quite simply, the shortage of accommodation in remote Queensland communities means that extended families will be homeless if their relatives cannot welcome them into their homes. Typically, overcrowding can cause or exacerbate domestic and family violence, drug and alcohol misuse, mental health problems, personal hygiene issues, risk of disease and physical injury. It makes it very difficult to get children to school and exacerbates wear and tear on houses, particularly in wet areas. Overcrowding is also a proxy indicator for homelessness as people move between relatives' houses and out of communities to regional centres.

Although Queensland has achieved remarkable success over the past 10 years in reducing overcrowding in remote areas from 46.6 per cent of households in 2007 to 24 per cent in 2017, there is still so much more that needs to be done. In my electorate of Herbert on Palm Island, there are people living in self-constructed accommodation with no electricity, no plumbing and no running water. In fact, at the end of last year, Dr Mike Freelander, the member for Macarthur, met with a local Palm Island resident who suffers from diabetes. This woman has nowhere to store her insulin, because she has no fridge. She has no fridge, because she has no home. She has no home therefore she has no electricity and her medication cannot be kept cold.

This funding is vital for Palm Island. Right now Palm Island is flooding from the effects of Cyclone Nora, and hundreds of people are desperately in need of shelter—people without a home. Palm Island does not have a cyclone shelter—something else this government has refused to fund. More homes are desperately needed. The Remote Housing Review identifies the need for 1,100 additional homes in remote Queensland communities over the next 10 years. It's a national shame that the Turnbull government will cease these funds on 30 June this year, despite overwhelming independent advice that it should continue.

Lucy Wicks (Robertson, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Herbert for her contribution. There being no further speakers, the debate is adjourned. The resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.