Senator ALLISON(10.14 p.m.) —I rise tonight to discuss the important issue of the shrinking supply of affordable housing to people on low incomes. It is now more than two years since the federal government and state housing ministers agreed at a COAG meeting that radical changes would be made to the way housing services are delivered in this country. Two years and a change of government later we still do not have a sound housing policy that properly addresses the needs of people on low incomes. Rather than face the real issues of why people are struggling, the government prefers to preach to one and all that if the states were more efficient, more competitive and more compliant there would not be a housing problem.

One week before this year's federal budget, the government announced that it would delay its radical plan to shift funding entirely away from the provision and maintenance of public housing stock and, instead, go along with the Commonwealth-state housing agreement for two more years. At the same time, it made deep cuts to the actual amount handed to the states under this agreement. On budget night, the Treasurer (Mr Costello) announced a $50 million reduction in CSHA funding this year, $50 million next year and a further $100 million reduction over a two-year period thereafter—assuming, of course, that the CSHA still exists at that time. To add insult to injury, the government also announced that $60 million would be taken from rent assistance for people sharing in public housing.

So what is the government's housing policy? Is there a plan at all? Most people understood, I think, that the federal government would, in its own words, accept responsibility for housing subsidies and affordability while the states and territories would take responsibility for the management and delivery of public housing services. But in the budget the government significantly reduced the funding that the states require to fund public housing stock and removed rent assistance for some tenants, making a mockery of its promise of housing affordability for the many people on low incomes.

On top of this, the Commonwealth housing task force has now been disbanded. It was originally formed, as I understand it, to develop a unified approach to housing, and this would be presented to the COAG meet ing, but now it appears that housing has been dropped off the COAG agenda altogether.

The conclusions drawn from the Perth housing ministers meeting are that the states intend to restructure their own housing service, regardless of the Commonwealth's agenda or the pleas of thousands of individual citizens for fairer, more equitable housing provision. So the states will do their own thing.

The Victorian government announced last week a drastic cut in the number of housing advocacy groups and housing councils. Thirty-seven advocacy groups and 18 councils will be reduced to just nine for the whole state. Of course, this was done as an efficiency measure, we understand. But a housing council worker from a rural area told me that the needs of the people in the Western District, for instance, would now have to be served by regional housing workers in Geelong.

Perhaps more significantly, the Victorian government has announced a radical change to public housing tenure. In fact, security of tenure for public housing is to be a thing of the past in Victoria. From 1 July, all new tenants will be subject to tenancy reviews every three to five years. People will no longer be eligible for public housing just on the basis of very low incomes. Rents in public housing will also be increased. Only those who are considered to be particularly disadvantaged—for instance, the homeless, the aged and those with disabilities—will be eligible.

The Victorian government's move has sent shivers down the spines of public housing tenants. At this stage the new rules apply only to new tenants, but they are asking, `Is this the thin edge of the wedge? Will we be next?' I think it is time the government listened to the very real fears of these people, and tonight I want to pass on some of the things they are saying. I have received two very moving letters in the last few weeks from women in quite different circumstances which articulate, in a way that I could not, the realities of the hardships faced by people on low incomes.

One is a widow with four young children. She was forced to apply for government support nine years ago after the death of her husband. She was unable to support herself and her children in their family home and was forced to apply to rent a privately owned house. She describes the discrimination from the real estate agents, who she says:

. . . clearly did not relish the idea of a woman-headed household. This was apart from the discrimination dished out to a welfare recipient.

She talks about what she had to say to get any sort of house:

I must admit I spent quite a few years lying about myself and my little family. This is not, however, as simple an act as it may sound, nor an easy thing to do. Firstly, the act of deliberately telling lies, even to a stranger in a real estate office, is a harrowing experience and one alien to my upbringing. Secondly, the fact that I had to try to get a foot in the door, literally, is degrading and dehumanising. What kind of system forces a woman to lie to get a roof over the heads of her children?

We were forced to move often, when the real estate agent discovered I had more children than I had admitted to, or more frequently when we were hit by an unexpected rent hike. Looking back, I wonder how I survived those years of constant moving, my children having to change schools, of begging from charitable organisations, of always dressing from the op-shop, of living in constant fear of being discovered yet again as a single parent with a large family, of hiding children in bathrooms while explaining to them that it was wrong to lie.

Most significantly, she describes the relief of securing a place in public housing. She says:

What saved us as a family was finally obtaining public housing after nine years of searching and waiting. Since 1983 we have had security of tenure and, apart from the bliss of income-related rent, this has been the best thing in my life so far. It is a sad indictment on an affluent society like ours that, for some people, through no fault of their own, not through lack of hard work or courage, there is no way out of the vicious poverty trap except the ephemeral prospect of winning the lottery.

Obtaining public housing meant no more chopping and changing schools, making friends with neighbours, becoming involved in our local community through voluntary work. It has meant that I was able to finish my schooling and am almost through my university degree. As I now have just two children left at home, I am looking forward to taking my place in the paid workforce at last.

The second letter comes from a women who had a successful career and a good income. She is now in her mid-fifties, single, on a disability pension and living in community housing. She says:

After rent, telephone, electricity, medical and other expenses, I have less than forty-five dollars to feed and clothe myself.

She says:

The last thing I wanted was to be reduced to this state, or be dependent in any way, which is why I exhausted all my savings and dug deep into Mastercard before I asked for any help.

Eventually, she says, a community housing group saved her from homelessness and saved her life. She says:

I felt physically ill as Peter Costello smiled from the television screen blithely slashing at housing, pharmaceuticals and rent allowances. I was appalled by the persistent implication that the poor rort the system. Amazed that 60 grand could win you an incentive and that the very old would get a cash handout if they don't drop dead on the job. I feared for the families felled by a thousand tiny cuts and the future of children brought up in such insecurity and hopelessness.

The final insult came when Mr Costello smugly announced a one billion Federation Fund. Won't all Australians have had a gutful of fireworks so soon after the Olympics? Wouldn't one billion be better spent housing the homeless, giving work to the jobless, and healing the sick? Better still, looking towards the year 2001, why not spend that billion educating the young so they have the intelligence to reject racism and intolerance, the skills to find employment and the compassion to care for the needy?

She goes on:

I beg you to prevent the destruction of public and community housing or privatisation that can only lead to further humiliation and exploitation of the poor and greater homelessness. Those poor homeless who did not even get on the census of this `lucky' country because they had no address.

She says:

Well I for one would rather be dead than homeless.

The private sector is not the answer for everyone, and for the 300,000 families currently on public housing waiting lists it is not their preference either. My hope is that the government will listen to such people and will open its collective mind to the evidence which is now being brought to the Community Affairs References Committee inquiry into housing. I hope that the government will develop a policy which meets the needs of real people such as these.