Scott Ludlam (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Social Services, Senator Fifield, because I understand there is no longer a housing minister. Are you aware that the National Partnership Agreement on Homelessness expires on 30 June, putting at risk hundreds of jobs across 41 different organisations providing at least 80 different support services in Western Australia? Are you aware that Mission Australia has calculated that without essential funding under this agreement some 80,000 men, women and children will be adversely affected and forced back into dangerous situations of homelessness or situations approaching homelessness, and that the jobs of some 3,400 staff across Australia would be in jeopardy? What is the Australian government doing to resolve this situation?

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Social Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The government acknowledges the positive impact the sector provides for vulnerable Australians and its important role in reducing homelessness. But I do need to point out that the previous government terminated NPAH funding beyond 30 June 2014 and did not provide for homelessness funding in the forward estimates. There was no provision for NPAH funding in the Pre-Economic Fiscal Outlook in August 2013, issued by the former Treasurer.

The government obviously is aware, though, that this has created significant uncertainty and difficulties in maintaining staffing levels and continuing the same level of support services. Significant funding decisions will continue to follow the budget process, and these decisions will be announced in May. The government will work to ensure that there is certainty for the sector as soon as is possible.

This is a situation that those of us on this side of the chamber who are now in government have found portfolio area by portfolio area—that is, where the previous government did not make adequate funding provisions and they did not put funding into the forward estimates. Obviously this government have an immense fiscal challenge and we are endeavouring to prioritise. We are endeavouring to frame a budget that can see that the core business of government, the core functions of government, receive the funding resources they deserve. I acknowledge that there is some uncertainty in this sector at the moment, and the government is working hard to resolve that as soon as possible.

Scott Ludlam (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. I might just ask Senator Fifield if he can check something, as I would hate to accuse him of misleading the Senate. Funding was not terminated. You might like to correct the record, Senator Fifield. Can the minister explain who, if anyone, is providing the government advice on homelessness and housing affordability since you axed the Prime Minister's Council on Homelessness, the Select Council on Housing and Homelessness and abolished the National Housing Supply Council and the Major Cities Unit? Do you actually have a policy on housing and, if you do, can you provide it to us?

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Social Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Contrary to what Senator Ludlam was seeking to perpetrate in the estimates committee last week, the government does have a housing minister. Minister Andrews is the minister responsible for housing. It is an area of priority for this government. This government will not necessarily receive advice from the same sources and in the same mechanisms as the previous government. It is up to each government to choose the mechanisms that best suit them. As Senator Ludlam would be aware, there was a decision of COAG to rationalise the number of ministerial councils from 22 down to about eight. While there will not be a dedicated ministerial council on housing, the federal housing minister will still work extremely closely with his state counterparts on these important issues. (Time expired)

Scott Ludlam (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I thank the minister for his answer and ask a further supplementary question. Minister, can you inform Western Australians, who are carefully considering who they are going to vote for in the forthcoming Senate by-election and who are suffering acutely from some of the least affordable housing in the country, whether you have any policy whatsoever on housing affordability or whether you just intend to run the campaign on three-word slogans?

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Social Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is as true of the housing portfolio as it is of every other government portfolio that you are in a much better position to assist the Australian people if you have a government that is living within its means, if you have a government that is not spending billions and billions of dollars on interest payments. Every single dollar that is spent on an interest repayment is a dollar that cannot be spent on housing, health, transport and people with disability. Something that this chamber and those opposite need to understand is that there is an opportunity cost for each dollar that goes on the interest bill. We are working hard on getting the budget back into balance. We are working hard on a plan to repay debt. If we do that, we will be in a much better position to do the right thing than those opposite ever were, including in housing policy.