Kim Carr (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Housing and Urban Development) Share this | Hansard source

I move:

That the Senate take note of the report.

I wish to take note of this report, because I think it is a subject which is of critical importance to the wellbeing of most of Australia’s vulnerable citizens. Sadly, I think there are few areas of public policy which have suffered more under the 10 years of the Howard government than their neglect of housing and urban development. Public housing, funded under the Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement, has borne the brunt of this neglect.

This report that we have here today highlights the need in the opinion of the ANAO to improve the level of accountability and transparency of the reporting for the Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement performance against agreed outcomes. Despite the fact that we have had Commonwealth-state agreements since 1945, a proposition is being advanced by this government that, essentially, questions of housing are matters of state responsibility and, if they are not matters of state responsibility, they are matters for the market. Despite the fact that we have had a Commonwealth-state agreement on housing for 61 years, this government claims that it knows nothing about it and that it has no responsibility for it. There is no minister for housing, no housing programs to speak of and no sense of the government’s responsibility to ensure that there is adequate equality of opportunity for all Australians. Particularly with regard to public housing, which is funded under the Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement, we see that this government has overseen a savage record of neglect.

The ANAO report talks a lot about risks and risk management. It notes that FaCSIA did undertake a risk assessment in response to its previous report in 1999-2000. It also notes that the current department that assumes responsibility for housing matters consulted only one stakeholder in its response. In other words, of the eight states and territories, only one was consulted. This is despite the vastly different issues and pressures that are faced by the states and territories with regard to the question of housing. I strongly endorse the ANAO’s suggestion that the department undertake a comprehensive risk assessment and that it broaden its consultation during the risk assessment process to encompass the full range of state and non-government stakeholders.

The Australian National Audit Office suggests that the risk assessment take place as part of the development of future agreements. But, at the moment, the greatest risk of all to social housing in this country is whether or not there will be future agreements. There is widespread concern amongst the stakeholders, be they state or territory governments, non-government organisations or providers of different types. Great concern has been put directly to me that there are constant rumours that the Howard government intends to walk away from public housing altogether when the current Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement expires. So this may be the last Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement if the government has its way.

Those fears are based on a rational assessment of the government’s performance to date. They are rational assessments based on what the government has actually done. Under the existing Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement, over the last 10 years real dollar support has declined by 30 per cent. There has been a 30 per cent cut in the level of funding support for public housing by this government. That is particularly shocking when we understand that secure, affordable housing is square one when we are talking about the opportunity for all Australians to get a fair go in this country. Having a decent place to live is the building block for almost everything else in life, whether it be finding a job, accessing education and training, or maintaining your health, social connections, friends and family. It is square one in terms of your social wellbeing.

Few areas of government policy hold a clearer mirror to a government’s values than its attitude to housing. The Howard government attitude is that the market is king with regard to the interests of housing, and provision of the housing needs of our most vulnerable citizens is, at best, perfunctory. Poor services for poor people are what this government can be characterised as standing for. It does not see that it actually has any obligations in this regard. Its reduction in funding to the Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement by almost a third has left the state housing authorities basically broke. Around Australia, it is the same story.

One particular example which I think is characteristic of the current situation is that of South Australia. In South Australia, the state authority receives $67 million a year in Commonwealth funding under the Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement. The CSHA has to repay $65 million per year for debt on loan repayments. So, in effect, the net Commonwealth contribution to South Australia for public housing is $2 million a year. That is the situation. The average age of existing housing stock in South Australia is 44 years. Fifty-four per cent of that stock has at least three bedrooms. All but 67 per cent of new applicants, however, are single people. So there is very old, obsolete stock being put in place and quite significant changes in the way in which people are seeking to use that stock. This is at a time when the Commonwealth has reduced its contribution to the provision of new stock by 30 per cent.

As a consequence of that policy, over the last 10 years the number of dwelling units available under the Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement arrangements has fallen from 372,134 in 1996 to 345,000 units as at the last available figures in 2003-04. That is a drop of 27,000 units in a 10-year period, at a time when the demand for housing has grown dramatically and when the cost of housing has risen to extraordinary levels. As a result of the reduction in stock and the availability of accommodation, the government policy has forced upon the states changes in the sorts of people who are able to use that stock. The number of new people getting assistance under the Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement has fallen from 50,000 in 1996 to 25,000 this year. There has been a drop of half in the number of new people. As a result, only half as many people have access to the moneys provided by this parliament. It is expected that by 2009 there will only be 15,000 each year who will access that stock.

So we have a reduction in funding, a change in the people who are getting access to it and a situation where people are poorer, their needs are greater and their opportunities to get into the private housing market are more limited. This is at a time when the housing market in the private sector is becoming increasingly expensive. The Commonwealth says: ‘We now have Commonwealth rent assistance arrangements.’ It is a disingenuous claim because the government uses figures based on the situation after its massive cuts to the programs in 1996. It claims that from 1997 rent assistance can be compared to current figures. In 1996, there was a reduction of some $200 million in Commonwealth assistance. If we take that into account and compare like with like, we see that rent assistance over this period has increased by 0.3 per cent. So we have increasing needs but no increase in the level of support from the Commonwealth. If we combine the Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement funds and the Commonwealth rent assistance funds in the period from 1996 to 2004 in constant dollars, we see a reduction in the level of funding by some $310 million. The Howard government spent over $300 million less on housing assistance in 2003-04 than it did in the period from 1996, when it came into office. (Time expired)