Gary Humphries (ACT, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

Okay. I will ask a question of the minister and come back to that later. I took part yesterday in the deliberations of the Senate Standing Committee on Community Affairs on the Appropriation (Nation Building and Jobs) Bill (No. 2) 2008-2009, which looked at the social housing program of the stimulus package. I must say that I was appalled to see how much reliance was being placed by the Australian government on the good offices and effectiveness of the state and territory public housing authorities as the vehicle for delivering some $6 billion—in fact, more than $6 billion—of funding for social housing across Australia, given the quite deplorable record of these agencies in delivering on existing housing programs, particularly under the Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement.

Senators will not be ignorant of the fact, I am sure, that in previous years some $1 billion was invested in social housing by the Commonwealth under the Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement, and the net outcome of that investment appears to have been that the total quantity of social housing in Australia fell. There were fewer social housing dwellings available through state and territory public housing authorities at the end of the relevant period after the $1 billion investment by the Commonwealth than there were at the beginning. With a record like that, it would be a very fair question to ask whether one ought to then increase that investment and hope you get a better outcome.

I ask the minister whether in all conscience he can tell the chamber that he has confidence in state and territory housing authorities to deliver the sorts of outcomes that the Commonwealth expects in social housing in this country given the clearly very poor record that these agencies have to make improvements in the quantity and quality of social housing across Australia. I also ask him to consider this question. This is an opportunity, with such an enormous investment available to the Commonwealth, to drive systemic and cultural change in state and territory housing sectors—to improve, for example, the level of accountability, the thoroughness of processes used to deliver outcomes and the way in which the public housing authorities involve the community housing organisations across Australia. If one looks at the agreement which has been reached between the Commonwealth and the states entitled National partnership agreement on the Nation Building and Jobs Plan—social housing, which is annexed to the report of the Standing Committee on Community Affairs tabled yesterday, one sees a document which demands very little of the states to improve outcomes in this area. Paragraph C18, which is entitled ‘Key requirements for proposals to be funded under element 1—new construction’, sets out the sorts of criteria which have been placed on state and territory housing authorities, and the rigour of these criteria appear to be wanting. It contains phrases such as:

Proposals … will be assessed against the following key requirements:

(a)

increase the supply of social housing dwellings within a jurisdiction …

What does that mean—the quantity, the quality, the total number of dwellings? If a state receives funding of half-a-billion dollars and it manages to increase the number of dwellings by a hundred, does that meet the tests that the Commonwealth is outlining? It appears to me that it does. Another criterion is:

(c)

increase the allocation of housing to people with highest needs on public housing waiting lists …

How many such people? Over what period of time? What are the highest needs on public housing lists? To what extent should the allocation be increased? It is not explained. These are appallingly loose tests being imposed on the states to deliver an extremely expensive program of $6 billion. Another criterion is:

(f)

constructed dwellings are environmentally sustainable …

To what standard and at what level? There are many tests for environmentally sustainable dwellings in this country. Which one does the government propose to use? It is not clear. If this is meant to be driving reform in state housing authorities courtesy of the enormous investment the Commonwealth is making, it is an abysmal failure. I ask the minister why he has felt it necessary, in the haste with which this package has been brought forward, to throw on the table $6 billion, all of it being shovelled out of the door into the coffers of state housing authorities, when such poor accountability mechanisms are in place to make sure that the Commonwealth taxpayer gets from this investment good value for money and to make sure that that systemic reform and cultural change in these organisations are driven and good outcomes at that level are obtained for those in the Australian community who rely on social housing.