Ms MACKLIN(9.51 p.m.) —I am pleased to rise to move a second reading amendment to the Housing Assistance Bill 1996. I move:

That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:

"whilst not declining to give the Bill a second reading, the House is of the opinion that agreements entered into under the proposed Act should—

(1)   operate for up to 3 years from 1 July 1996;

(2)   involve Commonwealth funding of $1,067,863,000 in each of those three years, to be distributed on the same (approximately per capita) basis as existing Commonwealth State Housing Agreement (CSHA) funds; and

(3)   explicitly allow CSHA funds to be used, where appropriate, with regard to the design, planning and management of cities and towns.

Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Is the amendment seconded?

Mr Latham —I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak.

Ms MACKLIN —Let me make this point clear right at the start: this is a Labor bill. This bill is almost identical to a bill introduced in this House on 29 November 1995 by the then Minister for Housing and Regional Development in the previous Labor government, Brian Howe. The reforms intended to arise from this bill and the subsequent negotiations with the states and territories were to dramatically improve the housing assistance for low income Australians.

If this government carries out these reforms, it will be one of Brian Howe's many contributions to making Australia a more livable country. There is no doubt that Brian would have agreed strongly with much of the general sentiment about the importance of housing assistance expressed by the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (Mr Ruddock) in his second reading speech. For example, he said that public housing and other forms of housing assistance do meet real needs and that they do contribute to a fairer society by addressing a basic human need.

Public housing and housing assistance in this country make a major contribution to reducing the number of people on an income which would normally condemn them to living below the poverty line. I think Brian would also appreciate the fact that the minister acknowledges that housing assistance is `based on the principle that all Australians have the right to affordable, secure and appropriate housing'.

However, as the second reading amendment implies, there are some substantive differences between the Labor bill introduced last year and the bill we are debating tonight. They are differences that, at their core, are the essential differences between the coalition and the Labor Party. The differences between the two versions of the bill indicate clearly that the coalition is not about accountability, despite the rhetoric of the Prime Minister (Mr Howard), that the coalition is not about forming enduring partnerships between the Commonwealth and the states and territories for the provision of social housing and, most importantly, that the coalition is not—certainly not from the evidence we have so far—about creating a system of social housing in this country which recognises that housing is more than just a house.

`Community and nation', which was released at the end of last year, set out Labor's commitment to fundamental reform of housing assistance for Australians on low incomes. It also recognised that:

A nation's housing and the quality of its regional and urban development have a major influence on the life of individuals and the life of the nation . . . Housing is more than bricks and mortar. Our quality of life is intimately affected by our housing. Where we live can make the difference in gaining ready access to jobs, education, transport and community services. Housing shapes the social life and the economic efficiency of our communities, and it contributes to a sense of safety and security.

In `Community and nation', Labor was:

. . . delivering a long-term agenda covering a wide spectrum, from housing to meet people's needs better, through improving regions and cities operating in the interests of their citizens and the national economy, to meeting broad infrastructure requirements at the national level.

We have shown by those actions that we recognise the relationship between all of these issues. Many of today's public housing estates, as the member for Werriwa (Mr Latham) and I know well, are now badly located relative to the availability of jobs or transport. They are in areas which were, in the past, areas of high work opportunity and where there was no need to travel long distances to work.

But it is true that the decline of particular industries has created local concentrations of hardship and unemployment, certainly in places like the northern suburbs of Melbourne. The 1956 Olympic village in my electorate of Jagajaga and the surrounding industrial estate are classic manifestations of this problem. As I said in my first speech in this House not very long ago, it is not good enough to tell people in these areas that market conditions have changed, and it is certainly not good enough to tell them that it would be economically rational to pack their bags and move on. For a start, of course, there are too many hundreds of thousands involved.

Like most people, like all of us, they are attached to their homes and to their neighbourhoods. These neighbourhoods are generally very rich in assets and advantages that, with a little planning and investment, can be translated into economic opportunities. They should be renewed, not abandoned, and we should be encouraging a pattern of growth which is both socially and economically sustainable. The important message for tonight's debate is that public housing investment has a very important role to play in that renewal.

Agreements entered into under the Labor version of this bill were to operate for up to three years from July 1996, and were to involve Commonwealth funding of $1.68 billion in each of those three years. Agreements entered into under the coalition version of this bill will operate for only one year from 1 July 1996, and will involve Commonwealth funding of $1.068 billion in the 1996-97 financial year, and only that financial year. Let us be quite clear on that point. Under Labor, states and territories had three years to plan the process of putting in place these very extensive and far-reaching reforms to the provision of social housing and were guaranteed funding while this important work was being carried out.

Under the coalition, the states and territories will have just one year to complete this process and have absolutely no indication as to how much funding will be provided from the Commonwealth beyond the end of the financial year we are about to embark upon. The states and territories of course are responsible for the building of new houses and the maintenance and upkeep of their housing stock.

Under the arrangements being proposed by the coalition in this bill, states and territories will not be able to plan their more than $1 billion capital program. It is absolutely impossible to think about planning for a program of that size when you have no idea how much money you are going to get from the coalition—the Commonwealth government—in the coming years.

Labor recognised that the radical reforms to social housing would take some time to introduce in a way that ensures that the reforms deliver improved outcomes for people in housing need. The interim agreements proposed by the previous Labor government allowed sufficient time—up to three years—so that many of the building blocks for the new housing model could be put in place. The arrangements proposed by the coalition in this bill create uncertainty. This is hardly an environment conducive to making sensible, sound strategic and forward thinking decisions.

What, you might ask—certainly the states are asking—is the coalition's objective in doing things so quickly? The new time frames suggest that the priority is not to create better arrangements for people in housing need in this country. I would like to think that this issue is so important, so urgent, that the time frame for implementing these reforms must be condensed. However, I suspect, along with some of the states, that the rationale is rather a budgetary one. It is simply yet another mechanism to reduce Commonwealth expenditure on housing assistance from 1997-98 in order to meet the so-called budgetary demands.

The previous version of this bill was also explicit about the desirability of the Commonwealth, states, territories and local governing bodies working cooperatively on the design, planning and management of cities and towns. This apparently is no longer desirable. The reference to cooperation in these areas of endeavour has been omitted from this version of the bill.

What should we make of this? Is the coalition telling Australians that cooperation between these three levels of government is not desirable? Is the coalition telling Australians that it is perfectly possible to create a social housing sector which will function effectively without paying attention to urban and regional design and planning? It is particularly important that we maintain the momentum of urban and regional development and it is extremely disappointing, particularly I must say to me, that this government has made a deliberate decision to kill Labor's better cities progress, as witnessed by the removal of these words from the bill.

The better cities program provided Australia with a template for the future. It was a practical example of the way in which many of the problems of urban decay and regional unemployment could be tackled in an imaginative way. It is true that unemployment is not just about a person's individual characteristics. It is also related to where people live and the opportunities for employment available in particular parts of cities or regions. Where one lives has an effect—and this is very important for this bill—on a large number of other factors. Some are obvious, such as the availability and accessibility of services and transport. But others are less obvious, such as the likely educational outcomes for one's children.

One of the aims of the better cities program was to assist in redressing the inequalities in people's lives caused by where they happened to live. The better cities program reflected a determination by the Labor government to recognise and take steps to address major problems in Australian society—a determination that the changes to this bill show is sadly lacking in this government.

One of the fundamental problems better cities and Labor's housing policies sought to address was that caused by structural change to the Australian economy. Much of our public housing stock was built in the fifties and sixties to house workers in areas where there were large concentrations of manufacturing industry, both in the cities and in the provincial towns. With the changes brought to manufacturing by the global changes of the last 20 years, many of these regions now find that manufacturing and the jobs associated have moved away or disappeared.

Over the same period, there has been an increasing trend to place social security recipients in much of this public housing. This has led to large numbers of people being trapped in areas where there are few employment opportunities. It is a very sad irony for all of us that the unavailability of affordable housing has this unfortunate outcome.

As I stated earlier, the economic rationalist approach is that these people should just get up and move. Even if these people had the capacity to uproot themselves in this way, there would be a couple of immediate problems. The first is that there would be housing shortages in the new areas and people would be forced to live in substandard dwellings. The second problem, which is very important, relates to our massive investment in our public housing stock—over $30 billion around Australia. It is far better then to provide some sort of stimulus to these areas where the housing stock exists. This would not only enhance the lives of the people living in these areas but also increase the value of one of our greatest assets: the stock of public housing. This was one of the aims of the better cities program.

Another point of concern is that the government has not seen fit to reveal its intentions behind the bill. We have yet to see the Commonwealth-state housing agreement that forms part of the reforms in this bill. What, then, is the real agenda? It is certainly hoped that this bill and its move to one year of funding are not covert means of reducing government expenditure on a very important area. A cynical observer—some of whom are in the states—might see some prospect of this in the move to have the states return in 12 months time, in what is certain to still be a tight budgetary climate, to negotiate the next stage of the agreement.

In government, Labor had very clear aims for its housing assistance legislation. The aim was to make the outcome of the legislation match the aspirations that accompany this debate. I want to put some of those aims on the public record. Specifically, these aims were to adapt housing assistance to the structural changes in our economy. In community and nation, Labor spelt out how this was to be achieved.

New policies were to be designed to achieve greater equity between people in the public and private rental markets; to improve people's ability to choose appropriate housing; and to deliver much improved private rental affordability for people on low incomes. The approach represented a fundamental reconstruction of the ways in which housing assistance is funded and delivered in Australia.

There were three key elements to this policy. The first was the recognition that access to appropriate, well-located housing is a vital element of a national employment strategy. Recognising the nexus between location and employment prospects was a major determinant in the type of housing policies that we developed.

The second element was a fundamental reform in the way financial support for housing is provided to people who are unable to afford their own homes. It was specifically to allow people on low incomes much greater choice about the size, type and location of their housing, and this could be from private, public or community providers.

Improved rent assistance payments were included as a means to significantly reduce the number of people who have to pay high proportions of their income for suitable private rental housing. This was also seen as a means of greatly reducing the number of people on waiting lists for public housing.

The third element was the removal of barriers to the creation of a national housing and urban development industry. When in government, Labor planned to encourage change within the industry to improve housing affordability, to provide more appropriate housing and to encourage the housing industry to become more efficient and able to look at competing successfully in overseas markets.

Private rental reform has been at the heart of recent developments in Labor's housing policy. The value of rent assistance payments has risen—they are very significant increases—from $163 million in 1982-83 to $1.4 billion in 1994-95. In real terms, that is an increase of 366 per cent, with a 96 per cent increase in the number of recipients.

Despite these major increases, there are still major challenges to be addressed. There is the disparity between the subsidies received by people in public housing and those renting privately. There are the difficulties experienced by some low income renters—who have the financial capacity—in moving from rental to home ownership. There is the need to promote nationally consistent legislative protection for both landlords and tenants in both public and private rental tenures.

I note that in his second reading speech the minister made reference to `the need to take a national, strategic approach to meeting the future housing needs of Australians'. I hope that is shorthand for what I am taking you through tonight. It is to be hoped that he is serious about this aim, unlike the Minister for Health and Family Services (Dr Wooldridge), whose main aim seems to be to abdicate as much of his portfolio responsibility as he can by foisting it on to the states. This, of course, is all in the name of efficiency. This is the heart of the matter.

While presenting us with what is basically the former Labor government's bill, does this government have what it takes to deliver on this long-term vision that I have outlined from the former Labor government? The fact that I have had to move this amendment does not bode well. In fact, it bodes quite ill for the low income renters of Australia. While paying lip service to Labor's policy, they will take the first opportunity—that is, in one year's time—to cut the funding to those in housing need. I hope that we will see a commitment to the policies that Labor had pledged itself to deliver.

Mr Latham —They will cut Better Cities.

Ms MACKLIN —That is right. I hope that we will see the provision of much greater equity between public and private renters in similar circumstances by improving the adequacy of financial support for people renting privately. These are the specific things that we would hope to see implemented. We would like to see assistance provided to those low income people where they can afford to maintain a loan into home ownership by enabling them to capitalise rent assistance payments for home purchase deposits. We would like to see public housing waiting lists reduced by improving the scope for people to choose private rental accommodation following improvements in rent assistance payments. That is a very important issue.

We would like to see job opportunities improved by opening up housing options in areas of high employment growth. We would like to see that existing tenants in public housing will not be financially disadvantaged. Finally, and most importantly, we hope that this government will live up to its pre-election policy promise that mirrored Labor's and ensure that new tenants in public housing will not need to pay more than 25 per cent of their income in rent for housing. Will this be another election commitment to be thrown out the door?

Another very important plank of Labor's housing policy was directly related to the need to give low income renters the opportunity to move to areas of higher employment or employment growth. To this end, it would be necessary to put in place policies to facilitate an increase in the supply of public and community housing available for rental in these areas. To achieve this, Labor proposed that the states be able to consider alternative private or community housing suppliers and commercial financing options if they get decent levels of private rental support. I imagine this latter point will have the approval of the present government. I certainly hope so.

However, there are other areas of Labor policy that are equally critical that I also hope will get the government's support. I hope they will provide a high level of customer service and ensure that consumers have access to information about policies and procedures as well as their rights and responsibilities. I hope they will consult with consumers about the planning, management and delivery of services, that they will provide effective mechanisms for the investigation and resolution of complaints and that there will be specification, monitoring and reporting against service standards and guarantees. I hope to see these in the agreement when we finally get to see it.

I also hope that the government develops a consumer code of practice in line with agreed national principles and with consumer input. Finally, I hope that the government conducts regular consumer satisfaction surveys to obtain feedback from tenants on the quality of services which are provided. These are several of the key elements of Labor's housing assistance reform that are worth reiterating as benchmarks against the future performance of this government.

The Labor government planned to take responsibility for housing assistance payments for low income renters in both public and private rental housing. To achieve affordable and appropriate outcomes, Labor's housing policy proposed to provide substantial increases in rent assistance and subsidies to new tenants in public housing to ensure that they paid no more than 25 per cent of their income in rent. That, too, is your policy. We hope to see it implemented. Labor's policy also proposed that existing tenants in public housing not be disadvantaged as a result of any of these reforms. Under Labor's policies the states, of course, would have retained responsibility for public housing property and tenancy management.

The point needs to be stressed that the previous Labor government bequeathed to the present government a housing policy that is evolving and growing with the nation's needs.  Changes to the nation's economy over time had created the need for a significant degree of restructuring in the industry. However, Labor's policies never ever lost sight of who they had been designed to serve—the low income renters of Australia. How could all this be done in the climate of uncertainty that only one year's funding provides? I cannot imagine how it could be done. I commend the amendment to the House. (Quorum formed)