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

Perhaps I can start on the second issue first. I will outline the process. The Commonwealth issues the guidelines in terms of social housing. I ran through the range of parameters yesterday, and one of them includes access to public transport. What will occur is that the states and territories, to varying degrees, as I understand it, are currently gathering together proposed developments for social housing and those are to be forwarded to the Commonwealth. Their proposals will then be checked through when they are received, and I would be very surprised if there were not a lot more than 20,000. The Commonwealth will then go through all of their proposals in detail and match them against the criteria. That is going to be the process. That is certainly much more rigorous than we ever had in the past under, say, the state housing agreement when the Commonwealth provided moneys. So it is a much more rigorous process, and that is how it will occur.

On the issue of public transport, Senator Milne has raised, rightly, that there is a practical issue of difficulty outside the major urban centres. She would be very familiar with the sorts of public transport issues faced on, for example, the north-west coast of Tasmania. Proposals for Hobart in Tasmania would obviously be easier to consider than proposals for some areas of the north-west coast, where there is a devolved series of towns and cities. As Senator Milne would know, there is public transport in Burnie and now in Devonport but there is no public transport in the towns in between and there is no interlinking public transport. That is an issue, and Senator Milne is right to raise it, that would need to be taken into consideration if there were to be X number of houses built on the north-west coast of Tasmania in Penguin, Smithton or anywhere else that did not have public transport. The obvious point needs to be made that we would not want to then say, ‘Look, matched against the guidelines there can be no social housing there.’ That is not intended. So we are practical and we have the public transport infrastructure.

But Senator Milne raises a legitimate issue of concern. To give the example with which I am obviously most familiar, in Smithton you could conceivably walk to most facilities, although people with disabilities and the elderly, depending on their physical condition, could find it a struggle in some respects. But there is also the issue of cross-connection to towns like Burnie and Devonport. People do need to go to those city centres and there is no public transport connection from the outer towns. Where I live in Forth there is no public transport to Devonport, which is only seven kays away, and that is a community of some 2,000 people. So it is a valid consideration.

There is only so much we can do in this package of $42 billion, but there are the practical issues of public transport infrastructure in the context of social housing. I suspect the circumstances you are thinking about, Senator Milne, are very similar right around Australia outside the major cities and urban areas. So, yes, public transport will be taken into account. Whatever proportion of the 20,000 houses are in the major urban centres, I would be very surprised if the criteria could not be met there. But there is going to be that practical issue in smaller towns and communities where there is no effective public transport.

What will happen is as follows. The states will gather together the proposals. As I have said, we do not have them yet; they are being gathered as we speak and provided to the Commonwealth. It would be very surprising if they were not more than 20,000. They will be rigorously examined by the Commonwealth, not just in terms of the details we have been discussing with you, Senator Milne, and other senators but as to the nature of the individual dwellings that are to be built and the various energy, health, safety and access issues. That examination will obviously be matched against what the states had planned to do over, say, the next two or three years in the absence of this package because, as the Prime Minister has made clear, the purpose of the 20,000 social and defence homes is not to replace the current state effort planned in other housing areas. There will be no replacement; this will be an extra effort, and we do not want shifting. So there will be the microanalysis, if I can describe it as such, of the buildings that are proposed—and we have had discussion about that—and the criteria for where they will be constructed, of which public transport is obviously one. There will also be the macroanalysis, if you like, ensuring that these 20,000 homes being constructed and paid for through the various state and territory housing are extra effort.

I am advised, Senator Milne, that when the process is concluded the Commonwealth will make publicly available the agreed projects for the entire country—the whole 20,000. Once the analysis has been completed, the go-ahead will be given to the states and territories, and the 20,000 dwellings right around the country to be funded by this program will be made public. I would be very surprised if you and others did not, rightly, have a look at these approvals. Obviously you will then make a judgment about the criteria and the way it has been applied. I think it is important this is made public because we want rigorous application of the guidelines, micro and macro; we want rigorous application. Again, I think it would be reasonably well known in the local community what was new and what was not, so there is really no sense in not making publicly available a long list of the 20,000 houses and where they are going to be built around the country.