Mr LATHAM(10.27 p.m.) —I join with the member for Jagajaga (Ms Macklin) in congratulating Brian Howe, the former member for Batman, on the reforms he was introducing to the public housing sector in Australia. Brian Howe was one of the outstanding members in this place—a member interested in public policy, better government and practical solutions in urban policy.

I would have thought those new members opposite would learn a lot by studying the career of Brian Howe because he understood that the solution to globalisation, the real answer to economic and social insecurity, is better government, not smaller government—not smaller government that forces more responsibility on to civil society which in many ways, in a globalised environment, is withdrawing from an active role in community and family. The solution is not in trying to force more responsibility on to the private sector in regional areas when those areas are already struggling with their levels of consumer demand and employment.

It is an interesting thing to hear the interjections from the government back bench. After listening to their first speeches, one can pretty well take all their speeches and put them in a bucket, take all their brain cells and put them in a smaller bucket, and there would be not one new idea emerging from that pool of thinking. It is the rhetoric of winding back the welfare state. It is the rhetoric of abolishing public housing. It is the rhetoric of pushing more responsibility on to individuals who are already disadvantaged, who are already struggling with the responsibilities and insecurity they face in a globalised economy and globalised society.

Those members opposite should learn from people like Brian Howe. Those members opposite, including the new member for Dickson (Mr Tony Smith), who is on the extreme right wing of the Liberal Party—very typical of the redneck views the Liberal Party has brought to this parliament from the state of Queensland—should learn from the career and thinking of a fine social reformer like Brian Howe.

Members opposite should learn from the sorts of reforms that are reflected in the housing package now before the House. They should learn the lasting lesson in public life that the answer is better government, not smaller government—government that makes a real contribution in levelling out the insecurity and the uncertainty of the globalised economy and the globalised society. That is the lasting lesson they should learn.

The reforms in this legislation, the Brian Howe housing package, will be long remembered in Australia as path finding. They will be long remembered in showing the way forward on the rationalisation of Commonwealth-state housing arrangements, on the rationalisation of Commonwealth-state responsibilities across the board; in showing the way forward in terms of horizontal equity in the housing market and social policy adaptability now that we have such a high level of capital mobility in our society and our economy. These are very significant reforms. These are, in fact, revolutionary in their impact.

All those members opposite who might scoff, who presented so little by way of new thinking and new ideas in their first contributions in this House, should study these reforms long and hard and learn well from them. In fact, I would have thought just looking at horizontal equity, the first principle of the Brian Howe housing reforms, surely that is something all members in this place would be interested in: the equal treatment of public and private tenants, the establishment of universal entitlement for shelter and housing in our country, a social benchmark so that no Australian pays more than 25 per cent of their income in rent and that it is rated against capital city costs.

What an outstanding reform on the social democratic side of politics, as we have done for universal health insurance with Medicare, to introduce a universal entitlement in housing, one of the basic issues and necessities of life in a civilised society—a universal entitlement for all citizens in housing such that no Australian, no matter how much they earn, no matter where they live, no matter what their personal circumstances, no matter what their level of advantage or disadvantage, would pay more than 25 per cent of their income in rent.

We come to the second principle. We, of course, listen to those opposite with their barren redefinition of federal-state responsibilities. They are interested in shifting services onto the states, knowing full well that those services will be abolished. There is no concern whatsoever by this government for the proper allocation of functions—not services that cannot be funded by the states, but functions that could logically be exercised by the Commonwealth and functions which could logically be exercised by the states.

Brian Howe has shown the way forward—a logical, rational, sensible division of responsibility between the federal government and the states in public housing such that the Commonwealth would harness its great income support, welfare and equity powers for the benefit of Australians. The states would provide the services in housing, in basic shelter, perhaps using the services of the public sector, perhaps harnessing those of the private sector, depending on the particular financial necessity—a so sensible rationalisation of federal and state responsibilities.

The Commonwealth should be the great civilising and liberating institution in our society for welfare and equity. The states, as they have so clearly done in recent times, should adopt the role of managerial service providers. This is a model that has implications across the sweep of public policy. It has implications, for instance, in the delivery of reticulated services.

I know this is something that the member for Griffith (Mr McDougall), in his quite good, first contribution in the House pointed out; he has a deep interest in these issues. He would appreciate, of course, particularly in the state of Queensland, that the highest beneficiaries, the greatest beneficiaries of pricing subsidies on water and electricity are high income earners. They use more water, as a rule of thumb—and the authorities will confirm this—than disadvantaged communities. They have more cars to wash, they have bigger gardens to water; they have a far higher consumption of water. So, if those prices are subsidised, of course, they are the greatest beneficiaries of that hidden public subsidisation on price. It is just as it is with electricity: they have more household utensils, they have a higher consumption of household electricity.

This has been a hidden issue in federal-state relations, one that the other side, by their scoffing and scorning, of course, demonstrate they have no interest in, no conception of whatsoever. But Brian Howe has shown the way forward.

The Commonwealth's power and role in government is as the great liberator, the great welfare provider, the great equalising force in our society and the states play the role of efficient service providers. At this stage, hopefully having convinced a whole range of new members about the merits of these reforms and knowing they will be back in the morning to listen to the continuation of my remarks and to praise Brian Howe, I seek leave to continue my remarks tomorrow.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.