Tanya Plibersek (Sydney, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Human Services, Housing, Youth and Women) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Does the Prime Minister stand by his statement that working families in Australia have never been better off, given that according to the Urban Development Institute of Australia, in the five years from 2001 to 2006 affordable houses in the Blue Mountains dropped from 71 per cent of the total to just 29 per cent?

John Howard (Bennelong, Liberal Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What I have repeatedly said is that I recognise that not every Australian family has enjoyed to the full the bounty of the last few years. I recognise that. I have never argued that every single family is equally as well off as they may have been. But having said that and acknowledged that, I do argue that generically, looking at unemployment levels, you cannot have any wealth if you do not have a job. If you do not have a job you cannot afford to buy a house, you have difficulty paying your rent and you have difficulty looking after your family.

I read out some statistics at the beginning of question time that illustrated just how much this fall in unemployment had reduced social deprivation in Australia. There are 117,000 fewer children in households with either parent unemployed. That is a massive improvement. It is a 17½ per cent reduction. OECD research has shown that there is no country in the developed world that has done better than Australia in providing for the less well off in the Australian community. One of the great lies of the Labor Party against the government is that we do not care about the underprivileged. The best way to care about the underprivileged in this country is to give them a job. If you use that as a measure you will have to acknowledge that this government has done everything it humanly could to help the underprivileged.

You asked me about the Urban Development Institute. I have read that report, and I have had a look at the housing affordability comparisons. I can confirm a large number of them. I will have to check whether the one used by the member is correct. I will give her the benefit of the doubt and say it is. I do not want to accuse her of deliberately distorting the figure in the document but I can confirm that the Urban Development Institute in that same report—and I am sure the member has read this as well—says that there were a number of factors affecting home affordability. The three factors given particular attention in the report—

Tanya Plibersek (Sydney, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Human Services, Housing, Youth and Women) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Ms Plibersek interjecting

John Howard (Bennelong, Liberal Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We do not like this, do we? No, we do not like this! This is the cherry picker exposed. They do not really like that. These are the three things: firstly, supply issues; secondly, delays in approval processes; and thirdly, state and local government costs and charges. I can also confirm that the report gets even better, my friends. It says:

It is acknowledged that the vast majority of steps that need to be taken (and in some jurisdictions are being taken) are at local government and state government level.

I think if the member for Sydney were—shall I put it this way?—objective enough in relation to these matters she might have prefaced her question by acknowledging those facts from that very same report.