Guy Barnett (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The President has received a letter from Senator Fifield proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the Senate for discussion, namely:

The Gillard Government’s mismanagement of the Strategic Indigenous Housing and Infrastructure Program.

I call upon those senators who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places.

More than the number of senators required by the standing orders having risen in their places—

The Acting Deputy President:

I understand that informal arrangements have been made to allocate specific times to each of the speakers in today’s debate. With the concurrence of the Senate, I shall ask the clerks to set the clocks accordingly.

Nigel Scullion (NT, Country Liberal Party, Deputy Leader of the Nationals) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I normally rise with some excitement to provide a contribution in the debates on matters of public importance—there are only a few moments of shabby pleasure we take in beating up the other side on their complete failure in most programs—but I have to say that today I rise with a feeling of not only disappointment but also some dismay at the extent of the incompetence and mismanagement of the programs more generally affecting our first Australians but particularly in the provision of housing and the SIHIP fiasco in the Northern Territory.

The standard and quantity of houses in Northern Territory communities has been raised in this place as a serious issues for many years. Inadequate housing supply means it is not uncommon for 15 to 20 people to share a dwelling in remote Territory communities, sometimes with non-functioning bathrooms and toilets—and all of the misery that goes with those sorts of circumstances. Many people now in fact choose to live outdoors under sheets of tin or tarpaulins because it is better to live in those conditions than in the sort of squalor that is associated with overcrowding.

Poor housing was raised as a significant factor contributing to child abuse and neglect in the Little children are sacred report released in 2007, and the Howard government decided it was imperative to take a greater role in providing housing in the Northern Territory. The previous government provided new funding of $514 million over four years on top of the existing budget to repair and build housing in remote Northern Territory communities. As I have said countless times in this place, this was an emergency response that was designed to provide immediate relief to our most vulnerable Australians.

When the coalition lost the election in 2007, it was with some relief that we found that Labor had decided to maintain the previous government’s commitment to housing, through the announcement of the Strategic Indigenous Housing and Infrastructure Program, or SIHIP. On 12 April 2008, the Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs, Jenny Macklin, increased the commitment to $547 million over four years with an additional $100 million to be provided by the Northern Territory government. This $647 million, later increased to $672 million, was to provide: 750 new houses; 230 new houses that would replace houses earmarked for demolition; over 2,500 housing upgrades; essential infrastructure to support those new houses; and improvements to living conditions in those town camps. Work was due to begin in October 2008, meaning that, with the government’s four-year timetable, all work would be completed by the end of 2012.

Unfortunately, the Labor government have failed at every turn to deliver on their promise, which is a monumental tragedy and an insult to the people who continue to suffer in Third World living conditions. Instead of construction being underway by October 2008 the alliance partner has only just been announced and will still need time to commence work. In the meantime, consultations about design and housing requirements began with communities. The amount of time and money allocated to these consultations was unprecedented. The community of Maningrida, for example, received nine visits between March and June 2009, but construction was not scheduled to begin until mid-2010. Later it was revealed more than $45 million was spent on consultations, administration and other bureaucratic expenses before a single house slab was poured, a single nail driven or a single brick laid. The reality was that not a single house had been completed by February 2009, despite money having been available since 2007 as part of the Northern Territory Emergency Response.

In July 2009 it was revealed that New South Wales Labor Senator Ursula Stephens had written to Minister Macklin a year earlier, in 2008, warning that no houses would be built under the program until 2011. The government immediately denied that there were any problems with SIHIP other than delays in implementing such a large program. The cover-ups continued, with the Northern Territory minister responsible for the delivery of SIHIP reported in the media on 7 July 2009 as saying that the government had met every deadline for this project—an amazing statement given that it had already been conceded that the program start date had been delayed.

The same month, NT government ministers Anderson and Hampton received a briefing on the program’s status. Ms Anderson alleged that less than 30 per cent of the $672 million budget would actually be used to build and refurbish houses. The NT minister responsible, Rob Knight, described the claim as ‘ludicrous’—and, of course, we can all remember Minister Macklin claiming that the figure was ‘completely wrong’. Both ministers either had absolutely no idea of the status of the program or were deliberately misleading the public. This was confirmed when a review of the program was conducted. Facing growing dissent, the government announced a review of SIHIP on 24 July 2009.

On 17 August 2009, a week before the release of the SIHIP review, the NT minister answered a question in the NT parliament on SIHIP where he said: ‘So they are the facts; work is underway, it is on track, it is a five- year program, and every single house will be built, every refurbishment will be completed, and all those training positions will be filled.’ The next day, on 18 August 2009, SIHIP’s director, Jim Davidson, who gave a briefing to Alison Anderson revealing SIHIP mismanagement, was removed from his position. Free from the constraints of the position, Mr Davidson spoke to the ABC in Darwin. He revealed that the SIHIP budget was only enough to build 300 houses—substantially fewer than the 750 that were promised—meaning that the budget was likely to blow out to over $1 billion. How prophetic that turned out to be.

The government again denied those claims, but in November 2010 it boosted the program’s budget by $456.7 million to a total of $1.1 billion. On 31 August 2009 the review into SIHIP was released. The review found: the program was overly bureaucratic with six layers of oversight; $45.54 million had, in effect, been wasted on inappropriate consultation before construction had commenced; and the promised construction targets could not be met. This meant that, in order to meet construction targets, all vital infrastructure works, including water, sewerage, power and subdivisions would have to be cut from the program’s budget and funded from other sources. The review exposed that all the Labor government’s public assurances that SIHIP was on track, on budget and would deliver what was promised were, in fact, untrue. The government was either totally unaware of the status of its program or deliberately hiding the facts from Australians.

SIHIP had quietly increased to a five-year program—just by media release, of course—and, with a new budget, continued with the government stating that the program was again on track; however, the waste, mismanagement and poor standards continued. The standard of completed renovations was well short of expectations for even the reduced $75,000 budget. Renovations now only include repairs to electrical fittings, bathroom plumbing and fixtures, and supply of a new stainless steel bench instead of a proper kitchen. Houses are not even painted anymore. One house I inspected at Ali Curung after it had been renovated did not have a single cupboard or shelf in the kitchen. That meant there was nowhere to store food or put plates and saucepans, and there was not even a drawer to get cutlery off the floor.

In estimates in October this year, officials revealed that:

… in order to make the limited funding that we have go as far as possible and to make as many houses safe and functional as possible, that functional refurbishment will be the focus for the majority of them.

This statement indicates that the functional maintenance, or ‘fix-and-make-safe’ maintenance, is costing the full $75,000 per house—work that has been achieved in similar communities, which I have also inspected, by qualified tradesmen for around $25,000 per house. The government repeatedly refuses to provide a breakdown of what the alliance partners are paid, effectively hiding this from scrutiny. Worse still, in November 2010—this very month—the Territory opposition received a briefing on SIHIP from NT officials which indicated that even the target of 2,500 ‘fix-and-make-safe’ renovations could not be achieved due to funding constraints. Where has all the money gone? The government refuses to answer this most important question.

The next issue that must be explained relates to the program’s target of 750 new houses. Northern Territory government officials have revealed that 50 per cent of the houses will have two bedrooms or less, while 10 per cent will only have one bedroom. A stack of one- and two-bedroom boxes is not going to alleviate overcrowding, which is a key objective of SIHIP. One of the worst aspects of SIHIP is the extent of the government’s deception about the mismanagement of expenditure and the time frames of the program. In December 2009, a post-review assessment was commissioned by the Australian government to report against the SIHIP review recommendations. When that was released on 17 March 2009 it was accompanied by a media release that said:

… the changes and recommendations of the 2009 review have been implemented, and have put the program on track to achieve its targets of 750 new houses, 230 rebuilds and 2500 refurbishments …

That is complete rubbish.

What is obvious is that millions of dollars have been spent while Aboriginal people continue to live in overcrowded and substandard housing. The government started with hundreds of millions of dollars and the goodwill of Aboriginal people, and it has squandered both. It is time that a full, open and independent inquiry is instigated to stop the waste and mismanagement that has characterised this program. We can no longer tolerate the monumental incompetence and failure that Minister Macklin has demonstrated in her mismanagement of this program. (Time expired)

Trish Crossin (NT, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There is no doubt that, since we came into government in 2007, the federal Labor government—under Kevin Rudd and now under Prime Minister Gillard—has been absolutely committed to closing the gap on Indigenous disadvantage. We have stated it time and time again. The actions that we have taken in supporting programs and various outcomes and outputs would show that. We are deeply committed to ensuring that the gap is closed and to addressing that in partnership with state and territory governments, and, critically, with Indigenous Australians at the nucleus of any change and any gap that is to be closed. They are the driving force behind anything we want to achieve.

Housing is absolutely essential to the Closing the Gap agenda. It is one of the seven key building blocks that have been agreed to by the Council of Australian Governments, COAG, as being essential to this outcome. We all know the link between safe and healthy housing and broader life outcomes, such as health, education and employment, has been well established, and we know that getting housing right is critical to restoring positive social norms. Let me digress for a moment in terms of ‘getting housing right’. Getting housing right in an Aboriginal community in the Northern Territory means that you consult with Indigenous members of that community. Therefore, each community has had a housing reference group established; each community has negotiated a leasing plan under which the houses can be built on the land that is leased; each community has gone through the process of identifying where they want the houses put; and each community has identified the nature and the type of housing they want. Does that happen overnight? No, it does not happen overnight. It was never meant to happen overnight. It was meant to ensure that Indigenous Territorians drive the outcomes by getting the kind of housing they want, where they want it and the conditions under which they want it. That has been the nucleus of the program that we have embarked upon.

In remote Australia, the state of housing provides the most visible evidence of the persistent failure of governments—I emphasise governments—to address Indigenous disadvantage. For this reason we have taken very strong action to improve the delivery of Indigenous housing in remote Australia. As a government we have committed the unprecedented amount of $5.5 billion over 10 years through the National Partnership Agreement on Remote Indigenous Housing to improve housing and living conditions in remote Australia. In talking about living conditions, we also have to look at extension of infrastructure. We have to look at extension of electricity, water and sewerage and, in many cases, an upgrade of that. I think I have already spoken in this chamber of how, when 25 new houses were to be built on Groote Eylandt at Umbakumba, the first thing people realised was that the electricity grid would not accommodate that many houses. Were you going to get a new house overnight? No, you were not, because the first thing you had to do was upgrade the electricity grid that would sustain that extra output of electricity in that community.

People opposite who tend to want to criticise this, day after day and week after week, do not provide the general public or this chamber with the totality of the work and the commitment that is out there. This is the single largest outlay that any government has ever made on Indigenous housing, and we have set ambitious targets for the construction of new and upgraded housing across remote Australia. Perhaps the fault was that we did set the targets. We did actually get out there and set some outputs and some key performance indicators. The opposition would have you believe that we are not achieving those. I and my colleagues who speak after me will prove that we are not only achieving them but achieving them beyond the target. Of course, if some targets had not been set, people on the other side would be jumping up like rabbits out of a burrow saying, ‘How many houses did you expect to build for that?’ or, ‘How many refurbishments did you expect for that?’ Of course, we have set targets—we have been ambitious: we have set KPIs—and we are now driving the agenda to meet those.

The Strategic Indigenous Housing and Infrastructure Program delivered through the national partnership agreement is the largest ever investment undertaken by the federal government and the Northern Territory government in Indigenous housing. Under SIHIP, housing and related infrastructure—and I really want to emphasise ‘related infrastructure’, because it goes hand in hand with any new or refurbished houses—will be improved in 73 remote communities and a number of town camps. Better housing, as we all know, is the cornerstone of healthy, sustainable communities. Yes, there were problems and concerns in the early days of SIHIP—and do you know what? As a government, we had the courage to actually admit that and have a look at what those problems were. The problems emanated from a model and an agreement that was designed under a previous federal government—one minister being Mr Mal Brough. That was a design model and an implementation model that the former federal government signed off with the Northern Territory government. When we got into government, there were problems. We have managed to review that, conduct research, have a look at where the problems were, and work with and iron out those problems along the way.

The transition to an entirely new model of delivering housing, including the introduction of new governance arrangements and a new large-scale procure model, was a major reform. SIHIP is much more than a construction project. It is a strategic infrastructure and housing program. So it is much more than just a construction program. It was always planned, under the delivery model of alliancing—a model that was put together by the former federal government. The SIHIP does not just build houses without addressing other issues of community disadvantage. It will leave a legacy of more functional and sustainable communities by providing real jobs and real economic opportunities for residents. Already the program is exceeding its Indigenous employment target, with more than 30 per cent of the workforce being Indigenous.

At 8 November, 93 new houses have been completed, 139 new houses are underway, 786 rebuilds and refurbishments have been completed, 105 rebuilds and refurbishments are underway and a total of 1,123 housing lots have had work. Three hundred and twenty three Indigenous people are employed on the SIHIP program, and the Indigenous employment rate across the program is currently tracking at 32 per cent of the total workforce. That is because, for the first time ever in the history of managing Indigenous housing programs in this country, we as a government mandated that, before any company could touch any tool, any brick, any piece of aluminium, any glass or any paintbrush, they had to sign up to ensuring that a percentage of their workforce was Indigenous. Did it happen under the Howard government? No, it did not. Was there any guarantee of Indigenous employment and Indigenous outcomes and training under the Howard government? No, there was not. So a very significant change and a very significant KPI under the Labor government is that we have Indigenous people employed. We have them off the Newstart allowance and we have them off CDEP where they choose to go off CDEP. We have them being trained. We have them out there as part of the workforce.

I have to say to my colleague on the other side of this chamber from the Territory: if you get around the Territory, if you went to Elcho Island or if you were at Gumbalunya, like I was last week, you would have seen more than a dozen men in those communities employed by Territory Alliance who are in training, who are very proud of what they are achieving, who boast about the full-time employment and who love the wages that they are bringing home to their families. They talked to me and Jenny Macklin just last week at Gumbalunya about the change they have perceived by being able to take up a trade that they believe will have lifelong benefits for their community. They said that the work experience and training makes them feel good about themselves. But it never happened prior to 2007.

So SIHIP is not just about building a house. It is about infrastructure and it is about changing what happens in those Aboriginal communities by giving people in those communities an opportunity to get into the workforce. That is because we mandated that. That is because you will not get one cent out of this program unless you provide at least a 20 per cent Indigenous employment target. I have to say that the alliances in the Territory have gone to 32 per cent of their total workforce. They are very proud of the fact that on the Tiwi Islands, out in Elcho and down in the town camps, they are getting Indigenous people onboard. They are getting them to be part of this and to own the outcomes. There are enormous legacy issues with housing in remote communities. We are not saying that SIHIP is solving all the housing problems in the Northern Territory; it is one program. There will be a need for more housing programs in the future and for the longer term. But SIHIP is a great start.

You can see the huge differences in the Alice Springs town camps. All 200 existing houses in the camps will be rebuilt or refurbished—43 three-bedroom houses and 42 two-bedroom houses will be built. A major clean-up through a fix-and-make-safe program was completed earlier this year under the $150 million Alice Springs Transformation Plan. In conjunction with the building program, 23 of the 40 staff employed to work on the Alice Springs town camps are Indigenous. And that figure is expected to grow as the construction increases. It has been an enormous transformation for the Alice Springs town camps. The standard of housing and the level of services are finally being lifted to that enjoyed by the rest of the town of Alice Springs. In May this year, Minister Macklin handed over the keys to the first of 85 new houses built in the town camps.

SIHIP is on track to meet its target of 150 new houses across the territory and 1,000 rebuilds and refurbishments by the end of this year. In fact, the national partnerships agreement building program is now being accelerated to deliver housing and housing related infrastructure ahead of schedule as the capacity of the construction consortia gathers strength. To take advantage of this demonstrated increased capacity, the Australian government announced on 10 October that it would bring forward $316.7 million over the forward estimates from the national partnership. Of these funds, $190 million will be used for housing related infrastructure, including sewerage and power. On top of this, the Northern Territory government in partnership is supporting the fast-tracking, by bringing forward $140 million of housing related infrastructure. This means that SIHIP will build around 180 new houses—and perform around 180 rebuilds—sooner than anticipated.

I just want to say in conclusion that, under the previous governments, none of these things were consistently in place—things like Indigenous employment targets, housing targets, funding reallocation where targets were not met and ensuring that skills and training for Indigenous people were happening so they could get a job. None of those things were in place—none of those were KPIs—under the mishmash of Indigenous housing arrangements we had under the previous federal government. There was no consistent measurement of progress, no national employment requirement outcomes, no tenancy standard agreements between landlords and tenants and no consistently secured tenure; there was just millions of dollars spent with abysmal outcomes.

One of the major things at the end of the day about this is that the houses that are built or refurbished become the property of the Territory Housing. They become the property of the Northern Territory government. So a major part of SIHIP has been a cultural change—when Indigenous people go into a SIHIP house, they are tenants of Territory Housing. With that comes all of the education that is required—to learn what a tenant means and what your obligations are. (Time expired)

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Northern and Remote Australia) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Strategic Indigenous Housing and Infrastructure Program, known as SIHIP, has failed Northern Territory Indigenous people and has in fact become a national disgrace. The program has been dogged by waste, mismanagement and bureaucratic bungling. As Senator Scullion, who led this debate and who is the opposition spokesman on Indigenous matters, clearly pointed out, the waste, mismanagement and lack of information is just criminal. I regret to say that it is another glaring failure of the Rudd and Gillard governments to implement policies in an effective manner. We had the pink batts fiasco, the solar rebates debacle, the boat people mess and the imprudent rush to splurge $43 billion on Senator Conroy’s NBN project; and now we have the SIHIP tragedy.

I call it a tragedy because Indigenous people of the Northern Territory have been promised so much by this government but have received so little. Millions of dollars have been squandered while whole communities continue to suffer living conditions that would not be tolerated in Third World countries. At Ngukurr, a remote community in Arnhem Land, there are 1,300 people living in just 113 homes. That is incredible. In one house, there are 25 people sleeping under one roof. As the ABC reported last week, elders in Ngukurr feel they have been conned by the Gillard government. One of the Ngukurr elders, a man called Walter Rogers, told the ABC that he believed the community had been conned. He said the community was promised some 53 new homes and the repair of all existing homes in exchange for signing a lease agreement, and that promise has been broken. Mr Walters has now been told that the $30 million program in that area will only provide eight extra bedrooms in the whole community. This is a demonstration of the Labor government’s mismanagement of this program. It is a program that promised so much but is now seen as a joke in the Northern Territory. Regrettably, it is a joke on the Gillard government, but I can assure you that members of the Indigenous community are not laughing. The depth of distrust of government is very evident.

While SIHIP relates particularly to the Northern Territory, I will digress a little bit to talk about another chronic neglect of Indigenous housing in an area near where I am based in North Queensland—that is, Palm Island, just off the coast of Townsville. The Howard government approved $762 million for the construction of Indigenous housing there. Mal Brough, the then federal Minister for Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs, released a plan for 46 new homes on Palm Island under the Howard government’s scheme. Three years later, not a sod has been turned on that project. The disgrace in what is happening on Palm Island is that the money was allocated but not a sod turned, and that reflects what is happening under SIHIP in the Northern Territory.

The Labor Party is simply incapable of managing money, and it is certainly incapable of assisting some of Australia’s most needy people. On Palm Island, up to 30 people are forced to crowd into one three-bedroom home; others are squatting in tin sheds made from scrap iron they got from the tip. So where has the money gone? That $762 million was allocated four years ago, and one wonders what has happened to it. Has it been used for the wages and accommodation of public servants, the very people employed to administer the scheme? No-one seems to know, yet Indigenous people on Palm Island continue to suffer in the sort of accommodation that would not be tolerated in Third World countries. Our first Australians deserve better. No wonder they are disillusioned with this government that is so long on promises and so short on action.

Glenn Sterle (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I too wish to make a contribution to this matter of public importance. As we all know, the Strategic Indigenous Housing Infrastructure Program is part of a much larger program, the National Partnership Agreement On Remote Indigenous Housing, which is a $5.5 billion project over the next 10 years to deliver housing to remote Aboriginal communities. I am a massive supporter of the government’s initiative to finally deliver at least some effort to build housing in Aboriginal communities. You, as a proud Western Australian, Mr Acting Deputy President Bishop, are quite aware from touring many Western Australian Aboriginal communities of the great disadvantage faced by those communities, and no doubt that is accentuated in the top end of Australia as it is in South Australia and the like. But I think it is rather disingenuous for that lot on the other side to carry on as they do—they really have a cheek. They had 12 years in government, and what did they do? All of a sudden they are the experts and, quite frankly, I am sick of it because, Mr Acting Deputy President, given the disadvantage that you and I have seen through Western Australia, those on that side have no right to start lecturing us on what we are at least trying to achieve.

I think Senator Crossin’s was the only intelligent contribution—it was really informative—and I would like to add to it. As we have heard, the Strategic Indigenous Housing and Infrastructure Program is a $672 million investment to construct 750 new houses and 230 rebuilds and 2,500 refurbishments of existing houses in the Territory by the end of 2013. I have some information on that which I will share with the Senate. Work is under way in 25 communities and 11 town camps across the Territory. For example, in the Tiwi Islands 22 new houses are tenanted and complete in Nguiu. I am happy to say also that work is under way on the construction of another 21 houses. Rebuild works are complete at Milikapiti, where 30 houses have been substantially rebuilt. In the Nguiu and Pirlangimpi areas, 63 houses have been rebuilt and refurbished, and work is continuing there on a further 17 refurbishments and rebuilds. At Nguiu, 90 new houses will ultimately be constructed over the life of the program, with 23 houses constructed in the first stage.

Let us go further down the Stuart Highway to Tennant Creek, where a total of 78 houses will be substantially rebuilt under SIHIP. I am told that rebuild works are complete at a number of communities around that area, with 39 houses having been substantially rebuilt. Across the remaining town camps, 23 houses have now been rebuilt, and the building of a further six is underway. I am also told that, in the Tennant Creek area, major infrastructure works are complete in a number of communities and that the Australian and Northern Territory government officers continue to work closely with the Julalikari Council Aboriginal Corporation down there to ensure that transitional housing is available when required. We have already heard from Senator Crossin about the Alice Springs town camps.

It is important that we get the message across. Mr Acting Deputy President, you share with me a passion for closing the gap between Indigenous and non-Indigenous communities in Western Australia, and lines on maps should not make any difference at all. I spend a lot of time in remote Aboriginal communities in the west, and it is really rewarding—as the Minister for Indigenous Employment and Economic Development, Senator Arbib, said in question time today—to hear that there are 323 Indigenous employees of SIHIP, who therefore make up over 30 per cent of the program’s workforce. This is absolutely fantastic news, and it should not be clouded by the disgraceful antics of those on the other side. Any program that delivers employment to Aboriginal communities should be applauded, because so far no-one has got it right. Those opposite can sit there and flap on about how wonderful they are, but they were not wonderful. It is only fair to say that at least the Rudd government initiated this program and it is being carried through by the Gillard government, and for that the government should be applauded. In question time today, Minister Arbib was asked by Senator Siewert whether Indigenous workers are on CDP, doing work experience or receiving income support. The rewarding answer that came out of question time was that these Aboriginal workers are being paid real wages at the award rate or higher. My goodness, wouldn’t the people in the communities in Western Australia that I travel through—as you do, Mr Acting Deputy President—love to receive a real wage.

Judith Adams (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

A lot of them do.

Glenn Sterle (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Real jobs, Senator Adams. Just in case you have not been into any Aboriginal communities I will help you out. I would love to help you out, actually, because you should be standing shoulder to shoulder with me and applauding what is going on in Western Australia. Are you saying no, Senator Adams, through you, Mr Acting Deputy President?

Judith Adams (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I beg your pardon.

Glenn Sterle (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Okay, let me talk about Western Australia. Senator Macdonald has given me the opportunity by digressing into Queensland. I should pass a map over to that side so that they understand. Let’s talk about the Dampier Peninsula, Senator Adams; I do not know if you have been there—

Judith Adams (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have worked there, actually.

Glenn Sterle (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

If you have, you would have seen the fantastic effort being made by Nirrumbuk Aboriginal Corporation up in Beagle Bay. You have been there—have you seen the fantastic work, through you, Mr Acting Deputy President? Then you would agree with me on the work that Nirrumbuk do up there. It is a fantastic Aboriginal corporation under the guidance of two of the most professional representatives of the Aboriginal community in Marty Sibosado and Ray Christophers. They have done fantastic work.

Nirrumbuk is also an RTO and has trained some 300 Aboriginal workers in that region. They carry out real training for real employment. They also employ through their building company. They are in partnership with, I think, Broad Construction. For you, Senator Adams, five houses are being refurbished in Beagle Bay. Are you aware of Beagle Bay? I actually went up there and visited—

Gary Humphries (ACT, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Defence Materiel) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is this relevant to this debate?

Glenn Sterle (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You are not aware? Okay, I will help you out; I will send you a map so you can stand with me and congratulate Nirrumbuk on the work they are doing with their Aboriginal employees.

I will give you some more information, Senator Adams, because you are a Western Australian and you are passionate about Aboriginal employment like I am. I do not want to insult you—I know that you probably know anyway—but this is what is going on in the program up in—

Gary Humphries (ACT, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Defence Materiel) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Acting Deputy President, I rise on a point of order. I realise that Senator Sterle is more familiar with Western Australia, but this is a motion about the SIHIP, which operates in the Northern Territory. That is the subject matter of this debate. I suggest he might like to return to what this debate is all about, which is a program operating in the Northern Territory of Australia.

David Feeney (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Acting Deputy President, on the point of order, I would just make the point that there has been some leeway demonstrated in this debate by all sides and Senator Humphries is seeking to apply a standard that was noticeably absent with earlier speakers.

Mark Bishop (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There is no point of order.

Glenn Sterle (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I listened intently. Thank you, Mr Acting Deputy President, and thank you, Senator Feeney. Let me just finish on this. The program up in Beagle Bay is part of the National Partnership Agreement on Remote Indigenous Housing, which SIHIP is part of. For you, Senator Adams, I think I was up to the number of Indigenous employees in that community in Beagle Bay. Out of 18 employees, 13 are Indigenous. The number of Indigenous employees by percentage is 72.22—remarkable. Imagine if all the mining companies could do that as well—wouldn’t that be fantastic? The number of worked hours by Indigenous employees by percentage is 82.07. If I can, I will give you the job descriptions of our Aboriginal employees up there working on this wonderful housing program. There are nine builders labourers, two carpenters, one wall and ceiling fixer and one plumber. Remarkable, fantastic work, Nirrumbuk—keep up the great stuff.

Gary Humphries (ACT, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Defence Materiel) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Humphries interjecting—

Glenn Sterle (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As I was saying, I still have some more information for the Senate on what is going on in the Territory under SIHIP, Senator Humphries. Let’s talk about the Wadeye region, shall we? I would like to share some information with you, Mr Acting Deputy President Bishop, and those on that side who do not have their fingers in their ears. Thirty-five new houses have been completed at Wadeye, work is underway on the construction of a further 27 and a total of no fewer than 105 new houses are being built at Wadeye.

Gary Humphries (ACT, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Defence Materiel) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Humphries interjecting—

Glenn Sterle (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Oh, did I pronounce ‘Wadeye’ wrongly? I apologise. I will go through it again just in case you were too fixated on my pronunciation: 35 new houses completed, 27 further houses under construction, and a total of 105 houses altogether. Fifty two refurbishments have been completed there as well, and work is continuing on another 14. Then we go to Groote, where six new houses have been completed, construction is continuing on a further 13, and a total of no fewer than 80 new houses will ultimately be constructed. How the other side can condemn a wonderful initiative that employs Indigenous workers I do not know. You stand condemned.

Marise Payne (NSW, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for COAG) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There is possibly one thing on which I can agree with both Senator Crossin and Senator Sterle this afternoon, and that is that the Strategic Indigenous Housing and Infrastructure Program is a very important program and a very important investment of Commonwealth funds. I do no think there is any dispute about that. I do not think there is any dispute from this side of the chamber—no matter what cheap disparagement those on the other side decide is apparently appropriate parliamentary debate—about the importance of the program. I do not think there is any dispute about the importance of addressing the issues that come with a lack of housing or living in the other fraught environments in which so many Indigenous Australians in the Northern Territory do.

That is not the point. The point of this discussion is about the mismanagement of a program which is this important. The point of this discussion is about transparency, accountability and responding to concerns which have been raised by locals in communities across the Northern Territory, by administrators who have been sacked, by the media, by members of parliament in the Territory parliament and in this chamber, and by others. I do not think any of those issues are unreasonable, and I do not think we should take as a fact or as a fait accompli that it is good because they say it is good, that it is above board because they say it is above board. Seeking, as elected representatives in this chamber with a responsibility for, and an interest in, these areas, the sorts of information that makes them more transparent and accountable is not an action from which I intend to resile—not now and not ever.

I listened to Senator Crossin carefully. It was certainly a more valuable experience than listening to Senator Sterle. It was valuable in terms of its rhetoric if nothing else. She has the rhetoric down pat, that is true, and the rhetorical story if it were backed by the facts would be a very good one. But our concern is that what matters in this program, as well as the construction of houses, is transparency, accountability and the facts. That is where our issue today with this MPI actually lies.

This is enormously complex and enormously important. It is a massive government spend. I have spent, along with many of my colleagues here now and those who are not in the chamber, hours and hours in Senate estimates and other committees—and Senator Adams would be a leading exponent in that regard—exploring these issues in detail because we all respect the estimates process like many of those on the other side do. It is not always easy to get answers, I have to say. I have a faint hope that we will get the answers to questions taken on notice at the last estimates on this by the due date of return, which I think is 10 December. I have a hope, but I am not going to hold my breath. It would be more helpful for us in our engagement on this program—the importance of which we do acknowledge—if we were able to receive those answers.

What is clear here this afternoon is that, while the Northern Territory government is responsible for providing housing in the broad of the jurisdictional break-up, it is the federal government who is providing the money, who is providing the funding to help with the construction and maintenance, and they have an obligation to ensure that the housing and value for money are actually being delivered. The example that Senator Macdonald referred to earlier of Nooka, which has been exposed in recent media reports, is reprehensible. I do not hear it acknowledged by those on the other side. I do not even hear the name Nooka come out of their mouths, only the good news stories.

There are good news stories. There is no dispute that the housing being built, and being built to the sorts of specifications and the sorts of requirements which make it appropriate housing, is a good news story. But what about those areas where the transparency and accountability is lacking? What about the community of Nooka, which Senator Macdonald referred to, where one particular senior elder is sleeping on his kitchen floor and has 24 relatives living with him? Apparently, this is after the delivery of the program in that area.

We have examples, also exposed in the media, of individuals choosing to live outdoors under sheets of tin and tarpaulins because it is better than living with so many other people. I understand that, as referred to by Senator Scullion, the Northern Territory government has just revealed that the budget for SIHIP will not in fact allow all of the promised 2½ thousand house refurbishments to be completed, that it will not extend to all of the 750 promised new houses, that 50 per cent of them will have two bedrooms or less and that10 per cent will be one-bedroom units. I do not know everything there is to know about Indigenous affairs, not by a long shot—in fact, I doubt many of us standing in this place ever will—but I do know one thing: I am yet to find a community where a lot of one-bedroom units will come in handy. The result of that will be that SIHIP will not be doing what it should be doing in the reduction of overcrowding and the raising of housing standards, and that is what concerns us. Not only is the government not delivering on its promises but it is going over budget as well.

Senator Scullion detailed in his contribution this afternoon a number of the failures that have marked this program. You cannot pretend that it is all peace, love and happiness when you have had an inquiry commissioned by your own minister. You cannot pretend that there is nothing to examine in all of this. When the work was scheduled to commence in October 2008 and not a single house had been constructed by mid-2009, how can you possibly be pretending that it is all peace, happiness and delight? There were reports which Senator Scullion also referred to of briefings of Northern Territory government ministers—last time I looked they were sitting on the same side of the chamber of the parliament there as those opposite us—when those government ministers themselves were forced to raise concerns about the administration of the Commonwealth funds. One minister resigned from the Northern Territory Labor Party, as I recall. Those issues are being obfuscated and ignored by those opposite. These are the concerns that we have.

We want to know where the employment is occurring, we want to know how it is structured, how people are being engaged, what sort of time they are spending, whether they are locals and whether they are imported into communities to work on projects and counted in the same way. We do not have information about those issues and we have been asking for that for some time. These are the sorts of issues which are important in the process. If you are going to claim a 30 per cent employment target being reached, then tell us how, tell us who, tell us how long they are working for, tell us how long they are engaged for and tell us what their roles are. We do not think they are unreasonable questions and we are still waiting for answers on those.

Louise Pratt (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This government is determined to close the gap on Indigenous disadvantage. Our government’s commitment to improving the life chances of Indigenous Australians in partnership with Indigenous Australians stands strong. We know that housing is absolutely central to the government’s Closing the Gap agenda. It is one of the seven building blocks agreed by the Council of Australian Governments as necessary to bridging the gap in this disadvantage. We know that the link between the availability of adequate housing and broader life outcomes such as health, education and employment has been well established. We know we need to overcome the historically very ad hoc and manifestly inadequate arrangements of the past in remote Indigenous housing.

We know that in remote Australia the state of housing currently provides the most visible evidence of the persistent failure of governments to address Indigenous disadvantage, and this is something we are moving on from. We know it is critical that we improve the poor standard of housing and infrastructure and that we reduce overcrowding and homelessness in remote Indigenous communities. But logistics in these remote communities are indeed difficult. We know that no family can be expected to function normally in an overcrowded, dilapidated house where you cannot cook a meal, store perishable foods, have a shower or do a load of washing.

I have seen evidence of this on the ground in remote communities in my home state of Western Australia. At Ringer Soak, for example, I witnessed chronic overcrowding, with over 160 adults crowded into 24 mostly two-bedroom houses. At Balgo, a relatively large remote community, I saw massive overcrowding, with up to 10 people in each house, and I saw also distressing evidence of the associated problems of mental health and family breakdown. There are similar problems of overcrowding in the remote communities of Mulan and Mindibunga too, so I do not question the importance of this issue. I know that getting our housing right is critical to restoring positive social norms.

So it is no small thing that this government has committed an unprecedented $5.5 billion over 10 years to the National Partnership Agreement on Remote Indigenous Housing to improve housing and living conditions in remote Australia. We know that in remote communities housing has traditionally been managed in a very ad hoc and very unsustainable way. This partnership is a huge step towards addressing this, providing things like regular tenure arrangements, fair and consistent property management and tenant behaviours. It is also the single biggest outlay any government has made to address the living conditions across remote Indigenous Australia. It is on all counts an ambitious reform agenda, representing an unprecedented national commitment to tackling what were previously viewed as intractable problems.

It is no small or easy thing to undertake such significant levels of investment reform, and indeed they are not without their difficulties. In the case of the Northern Territory, there were concerns expressed at the early delays in the rollout of construction activity. But we took swift action in response to concerns about the slow progress in capital works. A specific Office of Remote Indigenous Housing was established within Minister Macklin’s department, and senior staff were deployed to key jurisdictions to oversee the rollout of the national partnership. In response to a comprehensive review process in the Northern Territory, we have established an independent expert quality assurance team to inspect and assess new houses and refurbishments.

The government is confident that these steps will streamline implementation and ensure high-quality outcomes are delivered. The transition to an entirely new model of delivering houses, including introduction of new governance arrangements and a new large-scale procurement model, is a major reform. In this context, I very firmly believe that our management of the SIHIP is not a failure. It is, Mr Acting Deputy President Bishop, a significant achievement.

Gary Humphries (ACT, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Defence Materiel) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to join this debate and say that, if this program is considered a significant success, I would like to ask the government to explain the basis upon which they make that claim. We have a program here which is supposed to cost, at this stage, over a billion dollars. It was supposed to have been originally a four-year program, yet even those opposite admit that to date, after almost four years of operation, only 93 houses have been built—93 houses out of a $1.12 billion program which began in one form back in the middle of 2007. If that is a success, you guys have redefined success to a very, very low standard.

The opposition is raising these concerns because if ever there were warning signals about a program they are applicable to the SIHIP running in the Northern Territory. We are concerned about the cost overruns. When Minister Macklin announced the revamping of this program in April 2008, she said it would cost $647 million. Recently that figure has been revised to $1.12 billion but without any significant increase in the scope of the project. We are still going to have 750 new houses, supposedly. We are still going to have 230 houses replaced rather than demolished and we are still going to have 2,500 housing upgrades, apparently with associated infrastructure. Nothing more is being provided, but the cost is almost doubling.

We are concerned about delays. This was supposed to be a program that began in July 2007. Now it is going to run for five years, rather than four years as originally planned, from April 2008. With a program which has already been underway for almost three years, to have had only 93 houses built out of the 750 promised you would have to say that it is not looking good, given those serious delays when it comes to delivering on the expected level of housing.

The third point that we are raising is about poor value for money. Senator Scullion and others in this debate have already spoken about the incredibly poor-value outcomes people are getting in remote communities for very substantial amounts of money spent. Just this week in the Northern Territory News we saw pictures of some of the houses which have had so-called renovations under the SIHIP, and they look absolutely disgusting. There are houses covered in graffiti, with very poor quality work done on them. What was supposed to be a full refit of these houses, costing $75,000 per house, has turned out to be just repairs to electrical wiring, bathroom plumbing and fixtures, and new stainless-steel benches installed instead of a proper kitchen.

Senator Scullion made reference to his being invited to view a house at Ali Curung where, after it had been renovated, there was not a single cupboard or shelf in the kitchen, just a sink and bench. There was nowhere to put food, nowhere to put plates and saucepans, not even a drawer for cutlery. The house had a hole in the lounge room wall with the edges of the hole neatly painted, and outside there was no lid on the septic tank. That was a house where children were expected to live and it was anything but safe. That was for, apparently, an average cost of $75,000. Anybody else anywhere in Australia who saw that kind of work being completed would complain and say it was not acceptable, but, apparently, under this government it is perfectly acceptable.

The good intentions those opposite have to do something big in Indigenous housing and the commitment they have to close the gap are apparently adequate substitutes for actually delivering. If any program that this government is running has not delivered so far—and there are plenty of contenders for that title: home insulation, green loans et cetera—it is this program. The evidence is very clear that they are simply not bringing it together. There is clear evidence of concerns by individual contractors in individual communities, by individual tenants and by individuals all the way through to the Northern Territory government—one member of which felt so strongly about this mismanagement that he actually resigned not just from the government but from the Labor Party itself. This is a clear indication of the serious problems that everybody associated with this program has with it.

It is also not clear whether this program is providing the Indigenous employment which it is supposed to be providing. We have already heard that serious concerns are being expressed by contractors about people being employed not under full employment contracts but under Work for the Dole type arrangements or CDEP arrangements, which means they are not being paid at the appropriate rate. That comes from people actually working on the ground in Indigenous communities who are struggling to find the workers to employ and who are not employed at the appropriate rate. That is not an indication of a program in good health.

Senator Crossin pointed out that this is an unprecedented amount of money—the largest amount that any government has ever committed. Of course, when the costs are blowing out, it is not surprising it is a very large amount of money, and the amount will get bigger if the costs keep blowing out. If you want to deliver these sorts of outcomes but do not lift your sights with respect to what you are going to deliver and end up having to increase the costs because you cannot manage the programs competently, then of course the costs are going to be big. Big costs are no substitute for value for money for the Australian taxpayer and good outcomes for Indigenous people in these remote communities.

I acknowledge that this is not an easy problem to solve. I acknowledge that Indigenous communities have not had good outcomes under governments of all persuasions: territory, federal and probably many state governments as well. It is not easy to deliver in this area. We are simply saying to the government: pursuant to the principles of accountability which you signed up to under so-called Operation Sunlight, the warning signs for this program are very clear—things are going very badly. We are not getting value for money from this program, and the sooner the government accepts that and starts to act on these concerns rather than sweeping them away with the kinds of broad statements and glib comments we heard in today’s debate the better.

Claire Moore (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The time for the discussion has expired.