|
representatives vote 2023-02-15#4
Edited by
mackay staff
on
2023-02-17 12:47:01
|
Title
Bills — Housing Australia Future Fund Bill 2023, National Housing Supply and Affordability Council Bill 2023, Treasury Laws Amendment (Housing Measures No. 1) Bill 2023; Consideration in Detail- Housing Australia Future Fund Bill 2023 - Consideration in Detail - Proportion of grants to regional, rural and remote Australia
Description
<p class="speaker">Rebekha Sharkie</p><p>I move:</p>-
- The majority voted in favour of *disagreeing* with an [amendment](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/debate/?id=2023-02-15.128.1) introduced by Mayo MP [Rebekha Sharkie](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/representatives/mayo/rebekha_sharkie) (Centre Alliance), which means it failed.
- Ms Sharkie [explained that](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/debate/?id=2023-02-15.128.1):
- > *This amendment is pretty simple. One in five of us live in regional Australia; at least one in five of these homes should be in regional Australia. Too many of the decisions we make in this place very much favour the capital cities, and I see in my electorate and I see in regional Australia more generally that there is a huge need for housing. Down on the south coast of my electorate, we're talking about vacancy rates of less than one per cent. We need to make sure that a share of this money is going across regional Australia—just an equitable share. That's where the need is so great and that is where people are so isolated.*
- ### Amendment text
- > *(1) Clause 18, page 18 (after line 25), at the end of the clause, add:*
- >
- >> *(9) The proportion of grants made under subsection (1) or (3) during a financial year that are grants in relation to acute housing needs, social housing and affordable housing in regional, rural and remote areas of Australia must be equivalent to the proportion of the Australian population that live in those areas based on the most recently available census data.*
<p class="italic">(1) Clause 18, page 18 (after line 25), at the end of the clause, add:</p><p class="italic">(9) The proportion of grants made under subsection (1) or (3) during a financial year that are grants in relation to acute housing needs, social housing and affordable housing in regional, rural and remote areas of Australia must be equivalent to the proportion of the Australian population that live in those areas based on the most recently available census data.</p><p>This amendment is pretty simple. One in five of us live in regional Australia; at least one in five of these homes should be in regional Australia. Too many of the decisions we make in this place very much favour the capital cities, and I see in my electorate and I see in regional Australia more generally that there is a huge need for housing. Down on the south coast of my electorate, we're talking about vacancy rates of less than one per cent. We need to make sure that a share of this money is going across regional Australia—just an equitable share. That's where the need is so great and that is where people are so isolated.</p><p>When I drive home from the bottom part of my electorate, I drive past cars that I know have families in them. There are families hidden in the forest, and they're at the back of churches. It is a chronic issue. Yes, it is in the metropolitan areas as well; I know that. But we don't have the services in the regions when it comes to homelessness services. Our people are told they have to go to the capital cities if they need those services. And getting there is another thing, let alone the fact that they're leaving behind everything that they know.</p><p>So this is really about equity. I'm particularly calling out to the Nationals, who say that they're here for regional Australia. You might not like the bill in general, but I would ask you to support regional Australia with respect to this bill and make sure that we in the regions get a fair share of this investment.</p> <p class="speaker">Bob Katter</p><p>In America, they have 'redlining'. Five per cent of all banking has to go into redlined areas, which are basically the slum areas of the cities. And all of the rural areas of America are redlined, so they have to get five per cent of the banking. In Australia, it's just the opposite.</p><p>In all of inland North Queensland, the banks will lend no money for housing, full stop. You could put 90 per cent in, and they still wouldn't give you some money for a house, let alone for some business venture or agricultural venture. Is there discrimination in Australia? Too bloody right there is. If you're in a city area, you get the money from the bank. If you're in a country area, you can't. The Americans' democracy works so much better than ours, and here is a classic example of it: five per cent of all banking has to go into redlined areas.</p><p>We will be moving an amendment, and I think there will be widespread support from the crossbenchers. The great tragedy, of course, is that the Country Party was formed for exactly this purpose, and they serve that purpose never—never. It's just the opposite. So we would like the government to start thinking about redlining, because we are discriminated against.</p><p>If you want a graphic example of this, there are a million people living in North Queensland, my own land, and there are over a million people, about a million and a half, living in Brisbane. Brisbane has 29 kilometres of tunnels; we have none and we're not likely to get any. Now, why do they get 29 kilometres of tunnels and we can't get one at all? I don't mind if I get less than them, but I get none at all. We don't get anything at all.</p><p>Our situation is that 60,000 people live over there, and it takes them an hour and a half to get to the hospital, the CBD and the port. And they can't get to the port with heavy transport, so a great mineral province, with five of Australia's six greatest rivers, cannot be used for anything at all because we can't get the product out. The gulf is a flood plain; you can't possibly take product out through the Gulf of Carpentaria. If you want to get it out, you have to go through Charters Towers, which is south of Townsville, on a 2,000-kilometre round trip. Every single mining company that I've known that has opened up in that area has gone broke for that very reason. All we're asking for is $1,000 million for a tunnel, and they've spent $40,000 million on tunnels in Brisbane. I could give you a hundred other examples but I will rest there. I remind the House that in rural Australia the banks will not lend money. The great creator of the Labor Party, and arguably this nation, 'Red Ted' Theodore, one of the first things he did was introduce the state bank. When the great Labor Party of those days got into this place, the first thing they did was introduce the people's bank. We haven't got it, and—boy, oh, boy—are we getting the rough end of the pineapple because of that.</p> <p class="speaker">Helen Haines</p><p>I won't detain the House too much. I just wish to stand in support of my rural, regional and remote colleagues here on the crossbench because it really is up to the members of the crossbench here to push forward with representation for what we need out in rural and regional Australia. It bodes well to listen carefully to what the member for Kennedy has to say. He reminds us of our history. Sometimes he reminds us of things we don't care to think about. But right now he has just reminded us of some of our history and the difficulties that rural, remote and regional Australians face when they're trying to get finance, when they're trying to establish themselves with fundamental infrastructure. Again, I would call on my colleagues over here from the National Party representing rural and regional Australia, have a think about this. You know, if we haven't got the fundamental infrastructure to house our people, to ensure that we have the roads, that we have the hospitals, that we have the telecommunications, we cannot thrive. Housing is fundamental to that. I back in what the member for Mayo has to say and I remind people that rural, regional and remote Australia must never be forgotten when we are investing in this great nation.</p> <p class="speaker">Julie Collins</p><p>I do want to indicate to the member for Mayo that we're not supporting her amendment but we do understand the principle in which she's moving it. We do agree that we need to make sure that regional towns, particularly, and remote areas of Australia do get access to the fund. We will be looking at the best ways to do that. It might not be through primary legislation; it might be through the investment mandate. We do want to explore in the Senate the best way to do that. As I indicated earlier, we will be supporting some of the member for Indi's amendments to the supply council in terms of geographical disbursement.</p> <p class="speaker">Milton Dick</p><p>The question is that the amendment be disagreed to.</p><p></p><p></p> -
-
|