I J
(. oP U\)
PRIME MINISTER
SPEECH BY THE PRIME MINISTER, THE HON P J KEATING MP
LAUNCH OF THE COMMONWEALTH HOUSING POLICY,
COMMUNITYAND NATION -BEENLEIGH, 11 DECEMBER 1995
It is a real pleasure to be here.
A nation's success depends on adapting to change and preparing for future
needs. That is why there could be no more appropriate place to launch this
Statement than here in Beenleigh.
Everywhere you look around here there is change. Yet there are also
unmistakable signs that traditions are continuing and that a sense of
community has been retained.
This is a community centre, after all, and it sits between two old landmarks, the
Power Brewery and the famous Yatala Pie Shop which has been an institution
in these parts since World War 11.
Cities need traditions and a sense of continuity because people need these
things. We need to be part of the story. And we need to be part of
communities. We need to belong.
But we need to balance these needs with the need for change. Because we
need investment and growth to create opportunities and jobs, we need the sort
of change which is happening here. And because Australia and the world
Australians live in is changing all the time, we need the sorts of change this
Statement brings.
Last Wednesday in Melbourne I launched the Government's Innovation and
Information Statement. Today, we launch this housing Statement. We have
called it Community and Nation. Both of these Statements are essential steps
on the way to a stronger, more secure and more dynamic Australian social
democracy. The Innovation Statement described major new investments in Australian
industry, technology and telecommunications. It recognised that to keep
Australia in the first rank of nations we need to be at the forefront of technology
and ideas.
The Statement was an investment in ideas: it contained strategies for making
Australian ideas, and world ideas, work for Australia.
It was also an investment in best practice, in making Australian business and
industry as efficient and productive and creative as any in the world.
It was an investment in small business, because it is in small and medium
sized enterprises that ideas become products, Australian products.
We also invested in markets, particularly in the great markets of our region,
because it is on overseas markets that the success of these small businesses
largely depends.
And it was an investment in jobs the jobs of the future which will increasingly
come from these knowledge-based industries and the entrepreneurs who
provide their energy.
The Innovation Statement went much further than questions of technology,
industry and finance. It was a Statement about the kind of Australia we want,
the kind of society we want.
We were concerned with the application of telecommunications technology in
ways which will bring benefits to the greatest number of Australians; including
those for whom this technology creates an opportunity to escape from social,
economic and personal disadvantage. It was a Statement, as I said, to bring
us all closer together.
And so is this housing Statement, Community and Nation.
In so far as the Innovation Statement was an investment in the wealth of the
nation and jobs and opportunity for the Australian people, it was investment in
Australian social democracy. It was done to help provide the foundations of
our future prosperity and strengthen the bonds between us.
Community and Nation expresses the same ambition. It comes from a different
angle, but the ultimate goal is the same.
If it is not already obvious, the example of other countries should make it clear:
we cannot have a fair and just society, one in which opportunity and freedom
abound, if we do not have a strong, flexible, world class economy. But it is just
as true that the most dynamic economy does not guarantee fair and just social
results.
Those social results depend on the willingness of governments to
imaginatively and sensibly intervene. It depends, not just on good intentions
and good feelings, but on good policy. It depends on applying ourselves to
social policy with the same rigour and intelligence we bring to industry or
telecommunications or the economy.
And that is what we have done, I believe, with Community and Nation.
Housing is fundamental. Cities are fundamental.
We are talking about the environment in which Australians live. In which we
work and raise families. There are no better measures real or symbolic of
how well we are succeeding as a nation and as a society than the quality of
our housing and the nature of our cities.
Cities symbolise our economic and social ambitions and measure how
earnestly we pursue them. They are essential repositories of our continuing
traditions and community values, yet they are also a measure of our dynamism
and modernity.
Look at some of the richest countries in the world even the richest and you
see the results of inadequate planning and infrastructure, all of it ultimately
reflecting inadequate responses to social and economic change and ordinary
human need.
Look and you will see stark evidence of the fact that poor quality housing and
poor urban environments mean greatly reduced opportunities, greatly
increased crime and other social problems.
Not only do such cities inflict environmental hardship and deprivation on large
numbers of their inhabitants, they entrench poverty and disadvantage, they
entrench crime and despair.
You see the manifestations of poverty and crime, but what you don't see is the
economic, social and human cost. You can count the cost of law enforcement
or drug programs, or social welfare; but you can't count the cost to the nation's
social cohesion and self-esteem. And you can't count the cost of wasted talent
and ambition.
When poverty is passed on from one generation to another we all lose. When
we condemn generations to poverty the loss of human energy and creativity is
immeasurable.
As this Statement says, in Australia we have largely avoided the worst of these
problems. However, there is no denying they exist. There is equally no doubt
that the potential for them to multiply is real and immediate.
That is the principal reason for this Statement. If we are to maintain our social
cohesion and keep faith with our traditional egalitarian ambitions, we need to
respond to economic, social and demographic realities. If we are to break the
poverty traps and broaden the fight against unemployment particularly youth
unemployment, we need to respond now.
This is a Statement to meet modern realities and future needs. It proposes a
long term reform agenda which will go a long way towards ensuring that in the
21 st century Australia's characteristic way of life will be maintained.
This Statement provides for a fundamental reform to housing assistance for
Australians on lower incomes. We hope to enlarge their realm of opportunity
by providing accommodation which meets their family needs and puts
education, training, employment and services within their reach. We aim to
give them better housing and more choice, more options.
Housing is one of the largest components in most families' budgets. Yet the
benefits provided by public housing are the smallest component of the social
wage. While the benefits to a few people may be high, the average benefit is
low because few people can get into public housing.
Under these reforms the Commonwealth will take a much greater responsibility
for providing housing assistance. The reform package will underwrite:
substantial increases in rent assistance for about 500,000 people on
low incomes in private rental housing who might otherwise have to wait
years to get into public housing
the maintenance of a strong public housing sector without financial
disadvantage to existing tenants
subsidies for new tenants in public housing to guarantee that they pay
no more than 25 per cent of their income in rent
a wider choice in housing and location for people on low incomes
the renewal of old public housing estates
the development of benchmarks of affordability for low income renters,
and in consultation with the States, the creation of a new Consumer Code of
Practice.
The linchpin of Community and Nation is a radical reform to the
Commonwealth/ State Housing Agreement indeed we propose to negotiate
with the States a newagreement, one which addresses present and future
needs.
The first Commonwealth/ State Housing Agreement dates from 1945 when it
was introduced to provide public housing for people working in expanding
post-war industries. In the fifty years since that first Agreement, nearly
400,000 houses have been built.
The people who designed that first agreement had ambitions not unlike our
own. To quote from a report of the Commonwealth Housing Commission at the
time: We consider that housing is essentially an expression of the way of
life of people and that, therefore, it is impossible to separate housing
from a consideration of the broader aspects of the life of the people
from such questions as how and where they earn their living and how
and where they spend their leisure.
These were enlightened sentiments, but the old approach to public housing no
longer delivers what we need.
Many of our housing estates are ageing. The houses are ill-suited to the
composition of families today. They are not located where the jobs are.
And waiting lists which now stand at well over 200,000 continue to grow.
Despite major increases in rent assistance, over 40 per cent of recipients still
pay more than 30 per cent of their income in rent.
The time has clearly come for a reform as basic as that first Agreement.
What the Commonwealth is proposing today is a package to help people live
where the job, training and other opportunities are.
These reforms are about providing greater flexibility in the provision of public
housing. And they are about making housing more affordable for those renting
private houses. The housing reform package we are putting forward today is
about providing opportunities for a better future for many Australians.
The Commonwealth today proposes a package to help Australians live where
the jobs, training and other opportunities are.
These reforms will provide greater flexibility in the provision of public housing
and they will make renting private houses more affordable.
Accordingly, we will seek from the States a fundamental realignment in roles
and responsibilities. We will offer to take over full responsibility for housing
support for people on low incomes, including responsibility for the subsidy
implicit in public housing rental rates. In turn, the States will be asked to
vacate the public housing rental subsidy arrangements and to take
responsibility for the supply and management of public housing.
This increase in Commonwealth responsibilities will require a transfer of funds
from States to the Commonwealth. That is, those funds now employed by the
States in the provision of these subsidies would be turned to the hand of the
Commonwealth. The reforms will be budget neutral across the
Commonwealth, State and Territories.
The Statement contains a set of key principles for service providers including
the development of a Consumer Code of Practice.
It is important to stress that people currently living in public housing will not be
affected financially by the proposed reforms; and in future, public housing
tenants will pay no more than 25 per cent of their income in rent for
appropriate housing.
However, the principal target of this Statement is a group of Australians who
far outnumber those in public housing. There are 400,000 Australians in
public housing. But there are around 976,000 people receiving assistance for
private rental.
In recent years, we have significantly increased assistance for people on low
incomes in the private rental market. In 1986 we extended rent assistance to
the unemployed, and in 1987 to low income working families. And we have
increased the rates of assistance. For a couple with one or two children, rent
assistance has increased by almost $ 21 a week in real terms since 1983 an
increase of more than 100 per cent.
Nevertheless, there is a huge gap between those receiving rent assistance
and those in public housing, even for people on similar incomes. On average,
rent assistance is worth $ 1,500 per annum for a household. But the public
housing subsidy is worth an average of $ 3,800.
Under the reforms we propose the Commonwealth will use the funds flowing
from the realignment of roles and responsibilities not only to pay directly for the
subsidies of public housing tenants, but also to substantially improve
assistance for those renting privately.
But the primary aim of this Statement is to substantially improve the choices
open to those people on low incomes. There is no doubt that the current
arrangements make it difficult for people to get the housing that best suits
them. There are people in public housing who want to move closer to job
opportunities but are frightened of losing the security and financial support that
public housing provides.
There are others sitting it out on long waiting lists for public housing because
they cannot afford to pay the extra costs of private rental.
The fact is that many Australians take up these advantages, even though it is a
long way from their families and communities and from employment and
training opportunities.
The great change the Government seeks is that people on low incomes get
access to housing that is appropriate to their needs meaning principally
employment, education and services, which are the sources of opportunity.
The implementation of these reforms is contingent on successful negotiations
with the States. If they are to proceed, we will need to agree a satisfactory
adjustment to financial assistance grants to reflect the Commonwealth's
increased responsibilities on the income support side.
My colleague, Brian Howe, has already advanced discussions with the States
through meetings with State Housing Ministers.
We will also need to agree on a new results-based approach to public housing,
with clear performance indicators.
And the States will need to undertake the responsibility for providing an
adequate supply of affordable housing in appropriate locations.
The Government has proposed to the States and Territories an Interim
Agreement for up to three years from 1 July 1996, based upon existing
arrangements and funding levels, during which many of the building blocks for
the new model can be put in place.
Under the reforms, the States and Territories will have much greater flexibility
in the provision, financing, pricing and efficient management of the public
housing stock. The States and Territories will have more autonomy in
managing their housing programs within an agreed needs framework, a
change which will provide more accountability in property and tenancy
management arrangements.
As I said, the States will be required to supply appropriate housing where it is
needed and that will mean increases in the supply to some areas. However,
the States will be able to consider alternative suppliers and commercial
financing options.
These key changes will allow them to provide more appropriate assistance to
the needs of public housing renters. They will be able to respond to client
needs through a wider range of mechanisms, including leasing in the private
market rather than constructing purpose-built dwellings. This will provide a
substantial and continuing boost to the housing industry. The States and their
authorities will be able to develop a much closer relationship with tenants and
that should mean better results for everyone.
We will seek a better standard of service for people in public housing. At
present, most public housing authorities fill a dual role: they manage the
public housing stock and help potential clients with their accommodation.
As part of the microeconomic reform process, we will seek the separation of
these roles in order to provide a more concerted focus on client needs and
more efficient property management practices. T
In Sydney, Better Cities is creating the Parramatta link and Blacktown
station. In Melbourne, it is electrifying the rail in Melbourne's South East and
South West corridors.
That is to nominate just some of the projects.
And of course here in Beenleigh, just over three years ago I had the pleasure
of launching the Beenleigh to Robina rail project under the Better Cities banner
in the company of my colleague, Premier Wayne Goss. So I hardly need tell
you that it is a matter of great satisfaction to travel on this railway today.
I also hardly need to say that it is even more satisfying to announce another
million in capital funds for the Better Cities program over the next three
years. This funding will be used for projects in three priority areas.
We will continue to pursue programs of urban renewal, particularly in some of
our older public housing estates.
Our second priority is to improve the links to those international gateways
which connect us to the world. As part of this strategy, the Commonwealth will
contribute to the acquisition of land for a rail corridor to Sydney West Airport.
This contribution will be subject to the New South Wales Government meeting
certain conditions, including agreement on land use around the new airport,
and a timetable and strategy for the rail and road links.
The third priority is to make a better fist of managing development in our major
urban growth corridors. Brisbane to the Gold Coast is an obvious one and
hence our commitment to the railway.
Another example is Mandurah, south west of Perth, where rapid population
and industry growth has put great pressure on infrastructure and services,
particularly transport and water.
Under Better Cities, an integrated approach to management is developing a
rail transit system to service half a million people and clever ways of handling
water, sewerage and urban runout, to improve coast and river quality and
reduce demands for scarce water.
There have been a lot of mistakes made over the years, there has been a lot of
neglect and myopia. These projects prove not only that we have learnt from
our mistakes, but that we can rectify them.
Better Cities has proved just what its name says after generations of
indifference and thwarted good intentions we can build better cities.
By the same means we hope to eliminate the poverty traps and the alienating
and dispiriting environments in which too many Australians live.
We agree with the remarks made by Father David Cappo of the Australian
Catholic Social Welfare Commission last week when he said that we need to
provide not just houses for people but homes.
And I sincerely hope that the States and Territories will come to the
negotiations with this in mind and in this spirit.
We have an opportunity to make a fundamental and profound improvement not
only to our housing and our cities, but to the quality of our society and the well
being of a great number of our fellow Australians.
At the same time as we pursue this reform we must continue to renew our
urban environment.
Of course, we were not the first to believe in the planning and renewal of our
cities. The Whitlam Government made a concerted effort to solve the
problems. And there were sporadic attempts in the years separating that
government from the original Commonwealth Housing Commission. The
Commission itself was insisting on planning back in 1945, even going so far as
to say that the States should receive no financial assistance unless they had
enacted legislation for regional and town planning.
There have been many successes, but it is safe to say that neither the States
nor the Commonwealth have consistently lived up to these good intentions.
The Better Cities program provides evidence that we can live up to them, and
repair some of the damage.
I have visited any number of major projects in the past couple of years and I
have to say it has been one of the more inspiring experiences. Better Cities is
quite literally revitalising city centres and urban environments around the
continent. In doing so it is conferring very considerable benefits on the
Australian people and on the Australian economy.
In Newcastle, Better Cities' funds have helped restore historic buildings,
construct sea walls and realign roads and build bridges to link the city centre to
major residential developments.
In Stirling, in Western Australia, an electric rail link to the Perth CBD,
constructed with Better Cities funding, has made local businesses more viable
and life more convenient for residents.
In Elizabeth and Munno Para in South Australia, Better Cities funding is
helping to create affordable housing close to centres of employment, education
and community services.
The Taskforce, working in consultation with State, Territory and local
governments, will seek the means of increasing competition through a
coherent national approach to regulation.
The national approach to regulation will allow consumers a wider choice of
builders, more affordable choices in designs and materials, better quality
homes and a more efficient building industry.
There is some indication of the potential benefits of a national approach. The
Australian model code of residential development, which was released in 1990,
has been widely accepted and is helping people design and build attractive
affordable housing in well planned communities.
The name of this Statement, like the Statement itself, originated in Brian's
office. It suits the man as much as it suits the statement.
Brian Howe is leaving the parliament at the next election and it will be a
distinguished record of public service he leaves behind him. If this is not his
crowning glory it is at least a very big and bright last feather in his cap.
I know that it has been one of Brian's great ambitions to correct that inequality
in our national life which sees a very large number of Australians in private
rental accommodation living with an unwarranted and quite unjustifiable
disadvantage. In the end the justice and the wisdom of his proposal was
irresistible. Brian Howe has been an outstanding member of this Labor Government. He
is, of course, a man of the left but more than that, a man of passionate
conviction. He is also and just as importantly a good politician and a
conscientious and responsible Minister. History will show that he never put his
great desire for reform ahead of what was-on the day practical and necessary,
both for the Government and the nation.
That's why I say the title of this Statement is so appropriate. It is an
expression of Brian's belief in the community of men and women. He believes
in the values of ordinary people; in their capacity, if they are given a chance, to
lead good creative lives and collectively do great things. And he believes that
it is Labor's mission and a government's duty to give them that chance.
Brian also believes in the Australian nation. He believes that for all the vast
distances and cultural differences which separate us, we are, in the last
analysis, all Australians living in one nation; and we do best when we adopt a
national approach and put the national interest first.
He is a communitarian and a nationalist. In this he gives expression to a great
tradition. He has been a proud bearer of that tradition in the Commonwealth
Parliament and he leaves it knowing that in no small way this Statement will
continue to bear it for him.
And there are many good reasons for building them. Good urban design has
profound benefits for the community, for the environment and for the economy.
Good urban design can remove stress and difficulty, maximise efficiency and
provide the essential " glue" for a community. It can link us both to the future
and our past. It can express our values and ambitions.
Good urban design is also an essential element of good environmental
practice. With good design we can protect natural habitats, prevent
contamination of land and water, improve micro climates and raise community
awareness of environmental issues.
And good urban design also is a powerful force in economic activity. Good
urban design can be a decisive factor in attracting investment. It can give
cities a significant comparative advantage. An OECD report recommends that
cities wishing to stimulate economic activity should invest in infrastructure and
the quality of their urban environments.
These are powerful arguments and cities which have heeded them in Europe,
like Lyon and Munich, are reaping great benefits. In Australia it may be we are
inclined to take our relatively comfortable and easy way of life too much for
granted. If we are to maintain these comforts into the 21 st century and
compete effectively in the front rank of nations we are going to have to take
urban design and planning much more seriously than we have so far in our
history. We hope that this Statement will in time be seen as a turning point in the way
we think about our cities.
Housing is one of our most important industries. It contributes over five per
cent of GDP. In 1994-95 about $ 22.9 billion was spent on new houses,
renovations and additions.
Over the next ten years we will need to add another 1.5 million dwellings to the
6.9 million presently in existence. The fact is we will not be helped in this by
the complex and contradictory web of housing regulations which afflicts the
national housing industry.
The Industry Commission has estimated that reform of building regulations and
building approvals has the potential to deliver an increase in real GDP of one
per cent. If that estimation is correct, reforms to the housing industry have the
potential to deliver more than reforms to water, rail and road combined.
In other words, the housing industry constitutes an area of the economy in
need of major microeconomic reform. To do this the Government will establish
a high-level Taskforce to develop a comprehensive national reform strategy.