James Paterson (Victoria, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

There were a number of elements to Senator Cameron's question in question time today, as said Senator Brandis, and his subsequent contribution to the take note debate. Firstly, he asked about homelessness. He also remarked upon housing affordability. He went on to mention inequality. And, finally, he mentioned the government's commitment to hold a plebiscite on same-sex marriage. I want to deal with the substance of his question and his speech in a moment, but I, first, can't go past his comments on the plebiscite.

As encouraged and as touched as I am to see this new-found concern from Labor senators for wasteful spending, for excessive government spending and debt—and I hope they apply this new principle more widely, given their own track record in government on this, which is not too much to boast about—I have to point out the hypocrisy and inconsistency about their concerns about the plebiscite. There are those who are consistent on this issue and who approach it from a genuine philosophical point of view. I recognise, particularly, my colleague Senator Dean Smith, who has prosecuted an argument that, although I don't agree with in this instance, I can respect and understand. Senator Smith is against plebiscites; he thinks they are not the right way to decide public policy issues.

We cannot say the same for Labor senators and we cannot say the same for the Leader of the Opposition. Last month, he gave a speech proposing a path forward to make Australia a republic. In doing so, he proposed that we should hold a national, non-binding plebiscite in order to determine whether or not Australia should become a republic and, if so, what form of republic we should become. He then proposed that subsequently we should have a referendum to amend the Constitution based on the outcome of that plebiscite. We all know that the arguments that the opposition has made against the government's plebiscite apply equally, if not more so, to the opposition's proposed plebiscite on a republic. There is no need for them to hold a plebiscite on a republic to decide whether Australians are in favour of, or against, the plebiscite. That only has a political purpose. There is no need for them to ask the Australian people in a plebiscite which method of republic they would prefer, because ultimately it is up to the parliament to propose changes to the Constitution, which are then voted on in a referendum. So when those opposite come into this place and complain about a same-sex marriage plebiscite, when they complain about its cost, let's remember how inconsistent their opposition is to it.

Returning to the substance of the issue, as Senator Brandis pointed out in his answer to the question today, the government has done a great deal to address housing affordability and homelessness. There is the process we're working through with states to form a new National Housing and Homelessness Agreement, which will include an extra $375 million to help address homelessness. There is the new $1 billion National Housing Infrastructure Facility, which will help states expand the supply of land and housing to help bring housing prices down for all Australians. There is the release of Commonwealth land to, again, increase the supply of land for housing. There is the First Home Super Saver Scheme, which will allow young people to save more easily for their first home. There are a range of initiatives. As Senator O'Sullivan pointed out in his contribution to the debate, we also know that, although homelessness is in part about the availability of crisis accommodation, for example, short-term accommodation, affordable accommodation, it's also about a range of other issues, including mental health and substance abuse issues, and the government has a number of initiatives to address problems.

Finally, Senator Cameron and many of the other Labor senators in this debate have struck on a bit of a theme in recent times about inequality. We can expect to hear a lot more about this issue in the debate going forward. They are inspired by Jeremy Corbyn's success in talking about inequality and they're trying to transplant the debate from overseas to Australia. Unfortunately, in doing so, they have neglected to look at the facts. They certainly may believe that there is some political benefit to argue that inequality has been increasing in Australia, but in doing so they're ignoring the data and they're ignoring the evidence. The best measure of inequality is the Gini coefficient. It's the internationally accepted definition of inequality. It's the method of inequality that we use to compare countries' relative performance on inequality.

By any measure, Australia is one of the more equal countries in the world rather than one of the less equal countries in the world. It is worth remarking that we've achieved that despite being a country that prizes economic freedom, property rights and reward for effort. You may think that allowing people to succeed and get ahead and accumulate wealth and be successful increases inequality, but the truth is it doesn't. The truth is that an equal society that allows equal opportunity is a society that promotes both liberty and equality, and we've benefitted greatly from that in Australia. So the opposition should turn their attention to the facts and the evidence on this issue.