Nick Sherry (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Superannuation and Corporate Law) Share this | Hansard source

I do not believe that the picture of the various state housing authorities, as they are described, from state to state or from state to territory is quite as bleak as Senator Humphries has outlined. I have some local knowledge in Tasmania. I do not think it is as bleak as he has described. However, the agreements under the former government and going back many, many years have been overly focused on outputs rather than on a range of specific criteria for change and reform. If I look at ‘Key requirements for proposals to be funded under element 1—new construction’, I see there is a shift away from outputs to a range of quality criteria. In C18, it says:

Proposals for funding under Element 1 of the initiative will be assessed against the following key requirements:

(a)

increase the supply of social housing dwellings within a jurisdiction;

(b)

having regard to agreed reforms listed … in line with the report to COAG on reforms by December 2009;

(c)

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

(d)

facilitate or support the transition of persons who are homeless or at risk of homelessness to secure long term accommodation;

(e)

adhere to universal design principles that facilitate better access for persons with disability and older persons;

(f)

constructed dwellings are environmentally sustainable; and

(g)

promote activity in the short term using a variety of procurement arrangements, including spot purchases of house and land packages, purchases ‘off the plan’.

Those are the key requirements. As the Prime Minister has said in no uncertain terms and has made very clear not just in this area but in all areas for implementation of the package where there are state involvements, there will be a rigorous assessment of the key requirements. This is a significant change from the past where there has been a focus on outputs in this area.

So, firstly, I do not accept that the picture is perhaps quite as bleak as you paint it right around the country. Secondly, we do recognise that there is a need for reform and improvement that shifts the focus from outputs in this package or a consequence of this package in element 1, new construction. We do accept that there needs to be a significant change in focus. We intend to ensure that there is very vigorous assessment against the key requirements. As I have said, the Prime Minister has made it very clear—both publicly in announcing the package and in respect of the meeting that took place with the state premiers and territory leaders—that this will be carried out. To their credit, I understand they have accepted the need for these new requirements, the new focus and the very rigorous assessment that will occur.

Senator Humphries, you may not have been present when Senator Milne raised some of these issues and we had a fairly significant question and answer session. Senator Milne raised, for example, the five-star rating in Australia for residential buildings. In summary, I indicated that the Commonwealth does intend to ensure greater consistency in the application of building standards across all states because they vary. The increased energy efficiency requirements for new residential buildings to six stars, or the equivalent nationally, by 2010 and the introduction of mandatory disclosure of residential building energy, greenhouse and water performance at the time of sale or lease by 2010 go to some of the specifics of the key requirements that I referred to earlier. There is no criticism intended—not everyone follows the debate all the time—but there was reasonably extensive debate and discussion with Senator Milne about some of the matters you have been raising.