Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Attorney-General (Senator Brandis) to a question without notice asked by me today relating to homelessness.

This was a question that went to the issue of homelessness in Australia. This is National Homelessness Week. It's an absolute disgrace that there has been not one press release, not one statement and not one question from the government in relation to homelessness during Homelessness Week 2017. It doesn't surprise me, because they had no comment about it last year and they don't care about the homeless. That mob across the chamber are so comfortable, so well off and so divorced from not only the problems that the homeless have in this country but also the problems that ordinary Australians have in getting into a home. This is against all of the evidence that we have that they have no overarching policy.

We heard Senator Brandis saying, 'Well, we'll just get more jobs.' Well, if you're a young Australian trying to find a job in an area with 20-odd per cent youth unemployment, the chances of getting a job are pretty remote. A lot of those young Australians are in National Party seats, the worst party ever—no, One Nation is worse than them, but the National Party are pretty bad anyway. They don't look after their own area, and housing affordability is as bad in regional Australia as it is in the city. Wages are lower in rural Australia. Wages are lower in regional Australia and in some areas in regional Australia the actual cost of renting a house is higher than the cost of renting a house in Sydney. Those are the facts. What AHURI said—this is the government-funded body that looks at housing and homelessness—in their report in June 2017 is this:

… housing is not conceived within the machinery of government as a prominent economic or policy area, despite its very large asset value.

…   …   …

The research notes that there is evidence that this neglect is deliberate on the part of the present … Government …

This is a government-funded organisation looking at housing, saying there is deliberate neglect by this government. Rather than what Senator Brandis stood up and argued, that they had this great housing policy, John Daley, one of the recognised housing experts and housing economists in this country, said that you would need an electron microscope to see any effect on housing prices from the government's policies.

This is a government that would rather give $50 billion to the big end of town in tax cuts than look after Australians that cannot afford a home. They would rather give $50 billion tax cuts to their mates in the big end of town than look at people who have fallen on hard times and cannot put a roof over their head. They would rather spend $122 million going to a poll of the Australian people on marriage equality, because they have got a Prime Minister who is the weakest Prime Minister this country has ever seen since Billy McMahon—I reckon he'll make Billy McMahon look like Samson in the future. Malcolm Turnbull has no courage and no capacity to actually bring this government together to deal with the serious issues of housing and homelessness in this country.

Young people cannot afford a home, because this lot won't deal with capital gains tax and negative gearing. All they want to do is to make sure that their mates who put the funds into their election campaigns are looked after, and that means the rich people in this country get access to negative gearing and capital gains tax concessions at the expense of young people trying to get into a home. Young people cannot live in the suburbs they have been brought up in; it's a disgrace. (Time expired)

Barry O'Sullivan (Queensland, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That was a disappointing contribution from the senator, particularly when he invoked references to homelessness in the context of an overall argument trying to be advanced by the Australian Labor Party on the question of inequality. He well knows that there are any number of things that impact unfortunate people who find themselves in homeless situations, very few of which have to do with the availability of housing and shelter. This country, Australia, culturally is a very generous nation. For any individual who finds themselves in tough circumstances, there are any number of measures that this country provides, supported by this government and supported by many organisations, wonderful organisations, many that are based on religious faith and others that are just altruistic in their efforts to assist people in their situation in homelessness.

The senator well knows that many of the people who find themselves in those unfortunate circumstances do so because of some form of addiction or, indeed, have psychiatric challenges. Any number of houses and any number of efforts by this government—and there are many—and the altruistic efforts of churches and other community organisations would not bring about the changes that he is endeavouring to blame the government for. Here's a man who owns three houses and recently paid—

Catryna Bilyk (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

How many do you have?

Barry O'Sullivan (Queensland, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You know nothing about what I do in the housing market, Senator. But here's a senator who just spent nearly $2 million on a house in Tasmania, and he has the hide to stand up in this place and attack. This is class warfare.

Catryna Bilyk (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Says you! How many investments properties do you have?

Barry O'Sullivan (Queensland, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator, I'm happy to answer that question. I have one house, and that's the house I live in, so your attacks aren't there. This is about inequality. The argument that Labor have started on the question of inequality is about class warfare. If they consider that there is inequality out there—and I support this part of the senator's contribution—the best way to address it is to get people a job, so you might start by supporting this government's efforts in that regard. You resisted when there were some adjustments recommended for corporate tax changes for these businesses you call millionaires. They're not millionaires. These are people who operate pizza shops and small retail outlets—newsagencies, small logistics businesses and the like. Everyone who has even a moderate understanding of economics knows—and this evidence has existed for decades—that this will stimulate reinvestment in the economies where these businesses operate and they will employ people.

If the opposition want to insist on this question of what they consider to be inequality, they might start supporting us to get the 2,500 direct jobs that will come with the Adani Carmichael coalmine in Central Queensland, rather than continue on the course that they have been on for a decade now, which has seen us lose 14,000 direct jobs in Central Queensland. The senator wants to talk about unemployment; let's talk about youth unemployment in Townsville, which is at 20 per cent. And let's imagine what will happen if we get the Carmichael project going—and Hancock's Kevin's Corner, MacMines' China Stone, Waratah Coal's Galilee project, the South Galilee project and the GBK project. I don't have the time and I'd need a calculator to add up the jobs there, but my memory is that there are about 14,000 direct jobs, and that will feed into the 180,000 support jobs that are already at risk in my home state of Queensland as a direct result of these policies of the Australian Labor Party. So I do find it rich for the good senator to stand up and pretend to be a representative of the people, the blue-collar workers, yet fight against every initiative of this government—and I am a proud part of this government and its efforts in rural and regional Australia. You attack that, yet you won't even support the government in bringing about measures that will improve employment opportunities around the country. (Time expired)

Patrick Dodson (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This week is Homelessness Week, and in northern Australia we have probably the highest level of homelessness that exists. It's a good time to remind ourselves that housing is not a privilege; it is a right that human beings have. It seems to have become more of a tradeable asset, with little concern for the human needs and pain of those who are homeless. It is a right under the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights to enjoy an adequate standard of living—a shelter, a home, a house—to enable families to continuously improve their lot in life.

This right is not fully enjoyed equally by Indigenous Australians. Especially, it has not flowed equally to Indigenous Australians living in remote parts of Australia. Improving housing outcomes in Indigenous Australia is a challenging and important public policy issue. There is a huge discrepancy in the Indigenous housing experience compared to that of the general population. This has been a policy issue of some concern to governments of all kinds for some time, and I know this year there's been a gathering of all ministers to try to come together around a policy position, but we've not yet heard the report; we've not had that delivered to us. However, the existing inequalities in the housing sector for Indigenous Australians are becoming entrenched, and the current government's policy response is not achieving change. Inequality across Australia is deepening. The experience of this inequality in the housing space for Indigenous Australians is deepening as well.

Research from the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare shows Indigenous Australians are 10 times more likely to be homeless, half as likely to not be homeowners, twice as likely to be renters. Poor housing conditions and overcrowding are widespread. That connection to life quality is clearly understood. Over a third of the Indigenous population depends on social housing. Only if social housing works well can there be a chance for some sense of equality in health, education, home safety and economic opportunity. A child in an overcrowded house is more likely not to eat well, not to sleep well, not to study or to get up to go to school on time. They are more likely to suffer from diseases that go with overcrowding, such as scabies.

In recent discrete communities across Australia, Indigenous residents have been almost wholly dependent upon social housing. Home ownership and private rental markets largely do not exist. This government has been slow to bring forward the next stage of the National Partnership Agreement on Remote Indigenous Housing. We are still awaiting a long-promised review into the national program. The National Partnership Agreement on Homelessness has been in place since 2009. It refers to closing the gap on Indigenous disadvantage but does not explicitly address Indigenous homelessness. Nevertheless, a number of reforms of the services funded under the agreement, including those targeted at addressing rough sleeping and service integration, have established new and enhanced services in areas of high Indigenous homelessness. Many of these initiatives are directed to improving linkages between homelessness and housing services in order to achieve sustainable housing outcomes and prevent recurring homelessness.

The 10-year National Partnership Agreement on Remote Indigenous Housing has been in place since 2008. Over a 10-year period it was planned to provide $5.5 billion for the construction of 4,200 new houses in remote communities and upgrades and repairs to 4,800 existing dwellings. It also introduced new public housing-like tenancy management arrangements that have substantially increased the housing conditionalities. The money that is now being spent to meet this postal opinion poll—spending of $122 million—could well be provided to housing in the north and, certainly, given to legal services like the Kimberley Community Legal Service that deals with tenancy problems on a daily basis when people face evictions, rent arrears or are likely to be thrown out onto the street. (Time expired)

James Paterson (Victoria, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to 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.

Catryna Bilyk (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Firstly, I think we need to note that the minister that was giving the answer today is not the minister for housing and homelessness and he wasn't representing the minister for housing and homelessness, because the government don't even have a minister for housing and homelessness. In fact, they don't even have an assistant minister, which is in contrast to Labor. Senator Cameron, who is our shadow minister for housing and homelessness, has been working extremely hard to hold the government to account. Homelessness is an important issue. It's one that this government have failed to take seriously. We know they've shown no real commitment to addressing homelessness. Basically, they've fallen asleep at the wheel.

As we heard from Senator Cameron, homelessness does not just occur in our big cities. It's an issue for all Australia and it appears to be growing. There is no evidence—no evidence at all—to show that the number of people experiencing homelessness is less than the 105,000 people recorded as homeless in the 2011 census. An Australian Institute of Health and Welfare study in 2014-15 showed that my home state of Tasmania has the third highest rate of homelessness, coming in behind the Northern Territory and Victoria. In Hobart, where Senator Brown and I live, 150 people are sleeping rough on any given night. For those familiar with Hobart, you'll understand that, particularly in Hobart's winter, in the evenings with the winds that come off Kunyani—Mount Wellington, for those who don't know—it can be more than bitterly cold. I, for one, wouldn't like to be homeless on these winter nights, and I'm sure that none of my fellow senators from Tasmania would like to either. I think the government often forgets that what they're dealing with here are people not just statistics. We are talking about human life and we are talking about dignity of that human life. Having safe shelter is, obviously, a basic human need. Yet, it's one that this government has given up on ensuring that all Australians are able to meet.

Many in this place would be aware that this is Homelessness Week. The theme of this year's Homelessness Week is 'Action and Innovation'. Unfortunately, for a Prime Minister so dedicated to innovation, we have seen very little action on the issue of homelessness. The government's disdain for the issue of homelessness even stretched to the government senators, who voted with Senator Bernardi against the homelessness motion in this chamber on Wednesday. They voted against the motion on homelessness on Wednesday in this place. This government has shown time and time again it just doesn't care. They have just shoved homelessness off into the too-hard basket. Well, those of us on this side of the chamber do care and I, for one, believe it is vital to act and keep on acting until homelessness rates are improved dramatically.

The cause of homelessness is often common life experiences. The loss of a job, a marriage break-up, ill health, mental health problems and lack of superannuation can result in people either being on the streets or couch-surfing. In particular, we are seeing increasing rates of homelessness amongst older women and young people exiting out-of-home care. This is a national disgrace. We are a wealthy country. We have great resources. We've got the talents and skills of highly educated people available to us. We live in one of the most sophisticated technological society ever seen, yet every night we cannot find shelter and a bed for thousands of people who need one. This has to change. Nothing illustrates the growing divide in our society between rich and poor than the growing rates of homelessness. If we are serious about tackling inequality then making sure people have a safe place to sleep at night, a secure place to call home, a place to wash, a place to eat and a place to raise a family and be cared for must surely be a policy priority. Yet the government doesn't even have a minister for homelessness. It just astounds me.

When we were in government, we established the Social Housing Initiative, which was a schedule to the National Partnership Agreement on the Nation Building and Jobs Plan. Now, the main aim of the Social Housing Initiative was to stimulate the construction industry, increase the supply of social housing and provide long-term accommodation for homeless people and people at risk of homelessness. Around 19,700 new social housing dwellings were built. The repairs and maintenance element enabled approximately 80,000— (Time expired)

Gavin Marshall (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Hinch, is it on the same matter?

Derryn Hinch (Victoria, Derryn Hinch's Justice Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

A point of order. The point of order is that here in motions to take note today you have given 10 minutes to the government, you have given 15 minutes to the Labor Party and you have not given one minute to a crossbencher, even though it was requested.

Gavin Marshall (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Hinch, that is not a point of order. As I said to the crossbenchers before, these matters are sorted out between senators in this place.

Question agreed to.