Senator BARTLETT (Leader of the Australian Democrats) (2:22 PM) —My question is to the Minister for Family and Community Services, Senator Vanstone. The minister would be aware of a briefing breakfast on poverty that was held this morning in Canberra by the UnitingCare group. UnitingCare and other church and community groups say that not enough is being done to address poverty. In reference to the minister's previous answer to Senator Barnett's question today where the minister said that it is poorer people who are the first to struggle to pay the mortgage or pay the rent—a fairly obvious point—what is the federal government doing to address the current crisis in housing affordability, a key factor in increasing poverty? This minister talks about the gains from her stable economy. How is this delivering better outcomes for poorer people when the gap between the well-off and the not so well-off has grown since her government has been in power?

Senator VANSTONE (Minister for Family and Community Services and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women) —I thank Senator Bartlett for his question. Yes, I am aware of the breakfast—one of my senior advisers was at that breakfast. I think a light should constantly shine on the issues facing vulnerable people to make sure the policy makers do not forget and—let me go back briefly to my earlier answer—to make sure that policy makers never again think that you can just spend, spend, spend to keep yourself in government. That is what happened under Labor: they just kept spending and interest rates went up. They borrowed from the next generation. Interest rates went up, which meant that people could not afford their mortgages. It meant that small businesses were shut, and that meant that people lost their jobs, and that meant that people were therefore on welfare benefits, which were less than their salary, and so the cycle goes. Of course, the most difficult aspect in relation to the vulnerable—

Senator VANSTONE —If the senator wants to answer questions in this place, he will have to put some effort into getting back into government. The problem you have when you have a recession like the one we allegedly had to have is, as I have said, that the vulnerable people lose their jobs. When they are people with lower skills or perhaps skilled for industries that are no longer on the high-employment list, it is terribly hard to get those people back into work. That is why I mentioned that we have halved the number of long-term unemployed.

But as to your specific questions, Senator, I am sure it is a debatable point whether the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer. I was certain that was the case under the Labor government, and when you recognise that the wages of low-income families—and low-income workers—fell under Labor it is certainly true that they were worse off. The wages of low-income workers have risen under our government. The Gini index is one indicator of this, although it is an indicator to be used with some care because of the size of the sample and the variations that you can have. I am happy to talk to you later about the technicalities of that. Suffice it to say, I am not certain that what you say is correct.

Now, as to housing affordability, I am glad you have raised it, Senator. As you know, we on this side of the chamber have a very strong interest in that. That is why we have the matter being looked at. But, with respect, if you want to look at housing affordability, the first place you need to go is state governments because state governments control the release of land and the state governments control stamp duty on housing. I see that—even though it is a terribly expensive house—Lleyton Hewitt has bought a house in my state and the state government will get $170,000 simply because he bought this house. I do not have much worry with that, because he has plenty of money—it is a very high income earner's house—but I do have a worry with the stamp duty on the lowest quartile of housing. For the houses in that price group the concessions are not enough. They vary widely between the states. It is my view that the states should give much greater concessions to low-priced housing to help people get in and get a house.

The final point I want to make is that the last piece of advice I had vis-a-vis housing affordability related to the percentage of income spent on housing, and I think there is a debate that we can have there. Nonetheless, low interest rates and therefore lots more people being able to afford a house—thank heavens—have the side effect of pushing house prices up in some places where people want to live. (Time expired)

Senator BARTLETT —Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. UnitingCare and other church and community groups made the specific point that Australia is currently lacking a clear and coherent strategy to eliminate poverty. I would also highlight that we are currently lacking a clear and specific national housing strategy—beyond blaming the states and setting up an inquiry which ignores private rental and second home owners. What is the government's national strategy to address poverty?

Senator VANSTONE (Minister for Family and Community Services and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women) —With respect, I cannot accept your proposition, nor the proposition apparently put this morning that we have no clear and coherent strategy to address low incomes in Australia. Senator, you have a government that have been in office about half the time of the previous government and in that time we have repaired a very significant proportion of the damage. If you think that was a happy accident, Senator, you are on something the Federal Police want to know about. It is no happy accident. Good government is a very difficult task. The members of the team here and in the lower house are all working together on a range of strategies that are working. Why are they working? Because we have lower interest rates, we have real wages for low-income earners that have gone up and we have more people in jobs. You might not like the reality of that, but that is the consequence of having a Liberal-National Party government that is constantly working on a strategy to help low-income earners. (Time expired)

The PRESIDENT —Before I call Senator Faulkner, I remind all senators that there is too much noise in the chamber today. Just keep it down.