National Partnership Agreement on Remote Indigenous Housing

The Hon. K.J. MAHER (Leader of the Opposition) (14:24): I seek leave to make a brief explanation before asking a questions of the Minister for Human Services regarding housing.

Leave granted.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Last week saw two Liberal leaders ever so briefly visit remote Aboriginal communities. Premier Steven Marshall flew in and out of the APY lands, and Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull visited Tennant Creek. The Prime Minister has been reported to have declared, 'The lack of housing is the biggest single issue that has been described in every encounter' with locals. The minister for housing recently made a stunning admission to the chamber that she is yet to find the time to actually go and listen to local Aboriginal people living in remote communities but, as I have advised the chamber, housing remains the biggest issue raised with me in the remote communities I have visited this year.

Given we are now almost one month on from when South Australia's funding for remote Indigenous housing expired, leaving Aboriginal communities with no funding for new housing and no funding for maintenance of housing, my questions are:

1. Did the Premier request a briefing on the status of remote Aboriginal housing and the NPARIH agreement from the minister prior to his trip to the APY lands?

2. Has the Premier debriefed the minister on issues that were raised after his tour of the APY lands and, if so, what did they entail?

3. Has the federal government made any offer whatsoever to the state government for a new funding agreement?

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK (Minister for Human Services) (14:26): I would like to say that I would like to thank the honourable member for his question, but much of it was factually incorrect. There is funding that continues to be available for remote housing in South Australia even though the agreement has not been signed. When the Leader of the Opposition tries to claim that communities are under threat, I think he is doing all of them a disservice in raising completely unnecessarily alarm, and I think that is quite an irresponsible action for him to take. That funding is available.

In relation to the details of the remote housing agreement, I have said before that I am not going to go through the details of where negotiations are at because I just don't think that that is productive on the public record. We are working towards that goal. We are sincere about it which, I would have to say, the former government wasn't.

I noticed quite recently that the Leader of the Opposition posted on Facebook about this issue, and I had to correct him. I would have to say that some of the responses echo the sorts of sentiments that I hear regularly from members of the public in relation to the crocodile tears that are shed by members of the Labor Party when they raise these issues about, 'You've been here. Why haven't you fixed this?'. A number of people say, 'Well, you had 16 years'—and other uncomplimentary comments, which I will not repeat, about the Labor Party—and, 'These guys have been here four months. Give us all a break.'

So we are working sincerely towards the goal of resolving this. My firm belief is that the commonwealth is sincere and working on its best endeavours. The South Australian government is working on its best endeavours to resolve this issue. If we just do go back, I think I may have referred to some of the correspondence in this place before, but it is worth placing on the record because in one of his Facebook replies the Leader of the Opposition claimed that the former government had been in caretaker mode, which is quite amusing.

I have a letter—it is a draft letter, so I am not sure whether it was actually sent, but it was drafted on behalf of the former minister for social housing, the Hon. Zoe Bettison—and it refers to the expiry—

Members interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: Order! Allow the minister to answer.

Members interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: Order! Minister, continue.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: The reason that I raise this—I did go back to the department early on in this because it was one of the early matters that I sought to have resolved. As I have said before, I was aware of this matter before Christmas when stakeholders contacted me. One of the early things I asked of the department was whether there was any correspondence from Senator Scullion and the former minister for housing, and this draft reply came back. It would be an indictment on the former government if it was not sent, but I think by convention, too—

The Hon. I.K. Hunter: Now it's a draft reply.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: —ministers aren't automatically entitled—

The Hon. K.J. Maher: Is it a draft reply to the draft letter?

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: Can I finish?

Members interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: Minister, don't engage with the Leader of the Opposition. Through me.

Members interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: Order!

Members interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: Order!

The Hon. I.K. Hunter: Not sure if the letter's been sent—oh, now it's a draft reply; my goodness, gracious me.

The Hon. D.W. Ridgway: You won't stop, you won't stop.

The PRESIDENT: Have you two finished?

The Hon. I.K. Hunter: For now.

The Hon. D.W. Ridgway: Yes, see, how rude and arrogant!

The PRESIDENT: You started it, Hon. Mr Ridgway. I have to sit here and listen to your unofficial diatribe, and the Hon. Ian Hunter responding to it. Can the two of you remain silent, and I am going to give the call back to the minister to finish, and if you two could manage to restrain yourself for the remainder of the minister's answer, please. Minister.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: Thank you, Mr President. As we know from the awful situation that the Minister for Child Protection finds herself in, she can't access the report from the previous government. By some convention, incoming ministers are not automatically entitled to signed copies of correspondence, but I do have this draft letter, which is interesting because it certainly indicates that the former Labor government knew about this issue in May last year. For the Leader of the Opposition to claim in a public space that the reason why they were unable to—

The Hon. K.J. Maher: It expired on your watch; you're in government.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: —why they were unable to—

The Hon. K.J. Maher: It expired on your watch and you've done nothing.

The PRESIDENT: Leader of the Opposition, please, I would like to hear the minister in silence.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: Yes, and I would like to be heard in silence: thank you very much for your protection, Mr President. I note that the more the Leader of the Opposition prattles on because he loves the sound of his own voice, the more he wastes his own question time and that of others.

The PRESIDENT: Keep to the point, minister; keep to the issue at hand, minister.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: I'm sorry, Mr President. So this letter clearly indicates—and I think I have quoted it before, so I will save Hansard having to retype it—that the former government knew about this issue in May/June last year. For the Leader of the Opposition to make some claim about having been in caretaker mode, therefore the former government could not prosecute the agreement, yet had $290 million for a tram to Norwood during the election campaign, is just utterly fanciful. The Labor Party's record on this is shameful, and nobody is buying it.