❓ The WA Minister for Housing and Works criticises the Commonwealth government for significantly reducing funding for public and Indigenous housing in WA, leading to negative consequences for vulnerable populations. They also accuse the Commonwealth of delayed funding and inconsistent definitions of 'remote' communities.
AnsweredQoN 450Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
COMMONWEALTH SUPPORT FOR PUBLIC AND INDIGENOUS HOUSING
My question is to an A+ minister. Will the minister advise what the commonwealth government is doing to support public and indigenous housing in Western Australia? Mrs M.H. ROBERTS
My question is to an A+ minister. Will the minister advise what the commonwealth government is doing to support public and indigenous housing in Western Australia? Mrs M.H. ROBERTS
AnswerView source ↗
I thank the A+ member for Perth for the question. There is a very simple answer to what the commonwealth government is doing for indigenous and public housing; that is, very little other than steadily withdrawing funds. Often when we quote government figures in this house, members opposite say they are just our figures. Today I will refer to a quote from a 2003 report by the Australian Council of Social Service and National Shelter. My notes read - A substantial shift in housing support has taken place over the past decade away from the supply of low-cost public housing and community housing towards “in pocket” financial assistance. In the ten years to 2003-04, Commonwealth spending on Rent Assistance increased by 7% in real terms to $1.92 billion while base grant funding to the Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement (CSHA) - Members opposite do not want to hear this - decreased by 54% to $1.28 billion. The SPEAKER : I call to order the member for Vasse for the third time. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS : In a 10-year period in which we would expect a substantial increase in funding because we know we have had substantial increases around Australia - that is, increases in the demand and cost of housing and in housing and population - there has been a 54 per cent cut in commonwealth funding. That is more than $600 million less for Australian public housing, and thousands of people are suffering the consequences. Members opposite do not want to hear that the federal Liberals have cut over half the funding over a 10-year period. It does not end there. Western Australia has felt the commonwealth’s actions. In 2004-05, the commonwealth provided only $81 million for untied community housing and crisis accommodation programs. This represented a reduction in real terms since 1996-97 of $35 million, or 43 per cent. This is a damning indictment on the commonwealth government. It is a massive reduction and its impact has been felt in Western Australia. Shamefully, it does not end there. Members would have heard the commonwealth minister Mal Brough criticising the states for underspending on Aboriginal housing. I looked up the facts. Who do members think is the major contributor to the underexpenditure on indigenous housing in Western Australia? It is the commonwealth. Since pooled funding commenced, Western Australia has never received the commonwealth component on Aboriginal housing and infrastructure funding on time. To get it on time, we would like to get it on 1 July. I would like to have the funding next week. I have written to Mal Brough and sent in the plan. The plan has been approved at officer level, from the state to the commonwealth. However, I am told it is sitting on Mal Brough’s desk. We want that money next week, because in 2004-05 this state received the money in September 2005. Shamefully, the funding for 2005-06 was received in March 2006. It is hardly any wonder that we could not spend 12 months of funding in three months. Receiving the funding three-quarters of the way through the year certainly explains the reason that the money could not be expended in that year and the reason that the money has had to be carried forward. All the money has been spent or carried forward. Mal Brough talks about helping indigenous Australians, particularly in remote indigenous communities. What he conveniently forgets to tell people is that that applies only so long as indigenous people do not live in town-based communities. As of 1 July next year, town-based communities will not qualify under the agreement with the commonwealth. Why? The answer is that the commonwealth does not consider town-based communities in Kununurra, Wyndham, Halls Creek, Wiluna, Derby and Broome. These towns are more than 1 000 kilometres from Perth, but they are not considered to be remote. According to the commonwealth, they will not comply as of July next year. Mal Brough and the commonwealth government have been talking rot. They have withdrawn funding and are now offering $130 million to cover a range of portfolios areas when they have clearly reduced the funding under the Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement, underfunded indigenous communities and they have never provided the state with the money on time.
Mrs M.H. ROBERTS replied: I thank the A+ member for Perth for the question. There is a very simple answer to what the commonwealth government is doing for indigenous and public housing; that is, very little other than steadily withdrawing funds. Often when we quote government figures in this house, members opposite say they are just our figures. Today I will refer to a quote from a 2003 report by the Australian Council of Social Service and National Shelter. My notes read - A substantial shift in housing support has taken place over the past decade away from the supply of low-cost public housing and community housing towards “in pocket” financial assistance. In the ten years to 2003-04, Commonwealth spending on Rent Assistance increased by 7% in real terms to $1.92 billion while base grant funding to the Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement (CSHA) - Members opposite do not want to hear this - decreased by 54% to $1.28 billion. The SPEAKER : I call to order the member for Vasse for the third time. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS : In a 10-year period in which we would expect a substantial increase in funding because we know we have had substantial increases around Australia - that is, increases in the demand and cost of housing and in housing and population - there has been a 54 per cent cut in commonwealth funding. That is more than $600 million less for Australian public housing, and thousands of people are suffering the consequences. Members opposite do not want to hear that the federal Liberals have cut over half the funding over a 10-year period. It does not end there. Western Australia has felt the commonwealth’s actions. In 2004-05, the commonwealth provided only $81 million for untied community housing and crisis accommodation programs. This represented a reduction in real terms since 1996-97 of $35 million, or 43 per cent. This is a damning indictment on the commonwealth government. It is a massive reduction and its impact has been felt in Western Australia. Shamefully, it does not end there. Members would have heard the commonwealth minister Mal Brough criticising the states for underspending on Aboriginal housing. I looked up the facts. Who do members think is the major contributor to the underexpenditure on indigenous housing in Western Australia? It is the commonwealth. Since pooled funding commenced, Western Australia has never received the commonwealth component on Aboriginal housing and infrastructure funding on time. To get it on time, we would like to get it on 1 July. I would like to have the funding next week. I have written to Mal Brough and sent in the plan. The plan has been approved at officer level, from the state to the commonwealth. However, I am told it is sitting on Mal Brough’s desk. We want that money next week, because in 2004-05 this state received the money in September 2005. Shamefully, the funding for 2005-06 was received in March 2006. It is hardly any wonder that we could not spend 12 months of funding in three months. Receiving the funding three-quarters of the way through the year certainly explains the reason that the money could not be expended in that year and the reason that the money has had to be carried forward. All the money has been spent or carried forward. Mal Brough talks about helping indigenous Australians, particularly in remote indigenous communities. What he conveniently forgets to tell people is that that applies only so long as indigenous people do not live in town-based communities. As of 1 July next year, town-based communities will not qualify under the agreement with the commonwealth. Why? The answer is that the commonwealth does not consider town-based communities in Kununurra, Wyndham, Halls Creek, Wiluna, Derby and Broome. These towns are more than 1 000 kilometres from Perth, but they are not considered to be remote. According to the commonwealth, they will not comply as of July next year. Mal Brough and the commonwealth government have been talking rot. They have withdrawn funding and are now offering $130 million to cover a range of portfolios areas when they have clearly reduced the funding under the Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement, underfunded indigenous communities and they have never provided the state with the money on time.
I thank the A+ member for Perth for the question. There is a very simple answer to what the commonwealth government is doing for indigenous and public housing; that is, very little other than steadily withdrawing funds. Often when we quote government figures in this house, members opposite say they are just our figures. Today I will refer to a quote from a 2003 report by the Australian Council of Social Service and National Shelter. My notes read - A substantial shift in housing support has taken place over the past decade away from the supply of low-cost public housing and community housing towards “in pocket” financial assistance. In the ten years to 2003-04, Commonwealth spending on Rent Assistance increased by 7% in real terms to $1.92 billion while base grant funding to the Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement (CSHA) - Members opposite do not want to hear this - decreased by 54% to $1.28 billion. The SPEAKER : I call to order the member for Vasse for the third time. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS : In a 10-year period in which we would expect a substantial increase in funding because we know we have had substantial increases around Australia - that is, increases in the demand and cost of housing and in housing and population - there has been a 54 per cent cut in commonwealth funding. That is more than $600 million less for Australian public housing, and thousands of people are suffering the consequences. Members opposite do not want to hear that the federal Liberals have cut over half the funding over a 10-year period. It does not end there. Western Australia has felt the commonwealth’s actions. In 2004-05, the commonwealth provided only $81 million for untied community housing and crisis accommodation programs. This represented a reduction in real terms since 1996-97 of $35 million, or 43 per cent. This is a damning indictment on the commonwealth government. It is a massive reduction and its impact has been felt in Western Australia. Shamefully, it does not end there. Members would have heard the commonwealth minister Mal Brough criticising the states for underspending on Aboriginal housing. I looked up the facts. Who do members think is the major contributor to the underexpenditure on indigenous housing in Western Australia? It is the commonwealth. Since pooled funding commenced, Western Australia has never received the commonwealth component on Aboriginal housing and infrastructure funding on time. To get it on time, we would like to get it on 1 July. I would like to have the funding next week. I have written to Mal Brough and sent in the plan. The plan has been approved at officer level, from the state to the commonwealth. However, I am told it is sitting on Mal Brough’s desk. We want that money next week, because in 2004-05 this state received the money in September 2005. Shamefully, the funding for 2005-06 was received in March 2006. It is hardly any wonder that we could not spend 12 months of funding in three months. Receiving the funding three-quarters of the way through the year certainly explains the reason that the money could not be expended in that year and the reason that the money has had to be carried forward. All the money has been spent or carried forward. Mal Brough talks about helping indigenous Australians, particularly in remote indigenous communities. What he conveniently forgets to tell people is that that applies only so long as indigenous people do not live in town-based communities. As of 1 July next year, town-based communities will not qualify under the agreement with the commonwealth. Why? The answer is that the commonwealth does not consider town-based communities in Kununurra, Wyndham, Halls Creek, Wiluna, Derby and Broome. These towns are more than 1 000 kilometres from Perth, but they are not considered to be remote. According to the commonwealth, they will not comply as of July next year. Mal Brough and the commonwealth government have been talking rot. They have withdrawn funding and are now offering $130 million to cover a range of portfolios areas when they have clearly reduced the funding under the Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement, underfunded indigenous communities and they have never provided the state with the money on time.
A substantial shift in housing support has taken place over the past decade away from the supply of low-cost public housing and community housing towards “in pocket” financial assistance. In the ten years to 2003-04, Commonwealth spending on Rent Assistance increased by 7% in real terms to $1.92 billion while base grant funding to the Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement (CSHA) - Members opposite do not want to hear this - decreased by 54% to $1.28 billion. The SPEAKER : I call to order the member for Vasse for the third time. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS : In a 10-year period in which we would expect a substantial increase in funding because we know we have had substantial increases around Australia - that is, increases in the demand and cost of housing and in housing and population - there has been a 54 per cent cut in commonwealth funding. That is more than $600 million less for Australian public housing, and thousands of people are suffering the consequences. Members opposite do not want to hear that the federal Liberals have cut over half the funding over a 10-year period. It does not end there. Western Australia has felt the commonwealth’s actions. In 2004-05, the commonwealth provided only $81 million for untied community housing and crisis accommodation programs. This represented a reduction in real terms since 1996-97 of $35 million, or 43 per cent. This is a damning indictment on the commonwealth government. It is a massive reduction and its impact has been felt in Western Australia. Shamefully, it does not end there. Members would have heard the commonwealth minister Mal Brough criticising the states for underspending on Aboriginal housing. I looked up the facts. Who do members think is the major contributor to the underexpenditure on indigenous housing in Western Australia? It is the commonwealth. Since pooled funding commenced, Western Australia has never received the commonwealth component on Aboriginal housing and infrastructure funding on time. To get it on time, we would like to get it on 1 July. I would like to have the funding next week. I have written to Mal Brough and sent in the plan. The plan has been approved at officer level, from the state to the commonwealth. However, I am told it is sitting on Mal Brough’s desk. We want that money next week, because in 2004-05 this state received the money in September 2005. Shamefully, the funding for 2005-06 was received in March 2006. It is hardly any wonder that we could not spend 12 months of funding in three months. Receiving the funding three-quarters of the way through the year certainly explains the reason that the money could not be expended in that year and the reason that the money has had to be carried forward. All the money has been spent or carried forward. Mal Brough talks about helping indigenous Australians, particularly in remote indigenous communities. What he conveniently forgets to tell people is that that applies only so long as indigenous people do not live in town-based communities. As of 1 July next year, town-based communities will not qualify under the agreement with the commonwealth. Why? The answer is that the commonwealth does not consider town-based communities in Kununurra, Wyndham, Halls Creek, Wiluna, Derby and Broome. These towns are more than 1 000 kilometres from Perth, but they are not considered to be remote. According to the commonwealth, they will not comply as of July next year. Mal Brough and the commonwealth government have been talking rot. They have withdrawn funding and are now offering $130 million to cover a range of portfolios areas when they have clearly reduced the funding under the Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement, underfunded indigenous communities and they have never provided the state with the money on time.
Members opposite do not want to hear this - decreased by 54% to $1.28 billion. The SPEAKER : I call to order the member for Vasse for the third time. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS : In a 10-year period in which we would expect a substantial increase in funding because we know we have had substantial increases around Australia - that is, increases in the demand and cost of housing and in housing and population - there has been a 54 per cent cut in commonwealth funding. That is more than $600 million less for Australian public housing, and thousands of people are suffering the consequences. Members opposite do not want to hear that the federal Liberals have cut over half the funding over a 10-year period. It does not end there. Western Australia has felt the commonwealth’s actions. In 2004-05, the commonwealth provided only $81 million for untied community housing and crisis accommodation programs. This represented a reduction in real terms since 1996-97 of $35 million, or 43 per cent. This is a damning indictment on the commonwealth government. It is a massive reduction and its impact has been felt in Western Australia. Shamefully, it does not end there. Members would have heard the commonwealth minister Mal Brough criticising the states for underspending on Aboriginal housing. I looked up the facts. Who do members think is the major contributor to the underexpenditure on indigenous housing in Western Australia? It is the commonwealth. Since pooled funding commenced, Western Australia has never received the commonwealth component on Aboriginal housing and infrastructure funding on time. To get it on time, we would like to get it on 1 July. I would like to have the funding next week. I have written to Mal Brough and sent in the plan. The plan has been approved at officer level, from the state to the commonwealth. However, I am told it is sitting on Mal Brough’s desk. We want that money next week, because in 2004-05 this state received the money in September 2005. Shamefully, the funding for 2005-06 was received in March 2006. It is hardly any wonder that we could not spend 12 months of funding in three months. Receiving the funding three-quarters of the way through the year certainly explains the reason that the money could not be expended in that year and the reason that the money has had to be carried forward. All the money has been spent or carried forward. Mal Brough talks about helping indigenous Australians, particularly in remote indigenous communities. What he conveniently forgets to tell people is that that applies only so long as indigenous people do not live in town-based communities. As of 1 July next year, town-based communities will not qualify under the agreement with the commonwealth. Why? The answer is that the commonwealth does not consider town-based communities in Kununurra, Wyndham, Halls Creek, Wiluna, Derby and Broome. These towns are more than 1 000 kilometres from Perth, but they are not considered to be remote. According to the commonwealth, they will not comply as of July next year. Mal Brough and the commonwealth government have been talking rot. They have withdrawn funding and are now offering $130 million to cover a range of portfolios areas when they have clearly reduced the funding under the Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement, underfunded indigenous communities and they have never provided the state with the money on time.
decreased by 54% to $1.28 billion. The SPEAKER : I call to order the member for Vasse for the third time. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS : In a 10-year period in which we would expect a substantial increase in funding because we know we have had substantial increases around Australia - that is, increases in the demand and cost of housing and in housing and population - there has been a 54 per cent cut in commonwealth funding. That is more than $600 million less for Australian public housing, and thousands of people are suffering the consequences. Members opposite do not want to hear that the federal Liberals have cut over half the funding over a 10-year period. It does not end there. Western Australia has felt the commonwealth’s actions. In 2004-05, the commonwealth provided only $81 million for untied community housing and crisis accommodation programs. This represented a reduction in real terms since 1996-97 of $35 million, or 43 per cent. This is a damning indictment on the commonwealth government. It is a massive reduction and its impact has been felt in Western Australia. Shamefully, it does not end there. Members would have heard the commonwealth minister Mal Brough criticising the states for underspending on Aboriginal housing. I looked up the facts. Who do members think is the major contributor to the underexpenditure on indigenous housing in Western Australia? It is the commonwealth. Since pooled funding commenced, Western Australia has never received the commonwealth component on Aboriginal housing and infrastructure funding on time. To get it on time, we would like to get it on 1 July. I would like to have the funding next week. I have written to Mal Brough and sent in the plan. The plan has been approved at officer level, from the state to the commonwealth. However, I am told it is sitting on Mal Brough’s desk. We want that money next week, because in 2004-05 this state received the money in September 2005. Shamefully, the funding for 2005-06 was received in March 2006. It is hardly any wonder that we could not spend 12 months of funding in three months. Receiving the funding three-quarters of the way through the year certainly explains the reason that the money could not be expended in that year and the reason that the money has had to be carried forward. All the money has been spent or carried forward. Mal Brough talks about helping indigenous Australians, particularly in remote indigenous communities. What he conveniently forgets to tell people is that that applies only so long as indigenous people do not live in town-based communities. As of 1 July next year, town-based communities will not qualify under the agreement with the commonwealth. Why? The answer is that the commonwealth does not consider town-based communities in Kununurra, Wyndham, Halls Creek, Wiluna, Derby and Broome. These towns are more than 1 000 kilometres from Perth, but they are not considered to be remote. According to the commonwealth, they will not comply as of July next year. Mal Brough and the commonwealth government have been talking rot. They have withdrawn funding and are now offering $130 million to cover a range of portfolios areas when they have clearly reduced the funding under the Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement, underfunded indigenous communities and they have never provided the state with the money on time.
The SPEAKER : I call to order the member for Vasse for the third time. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS : In a 10-year period in which we would expect a substantial increase in funding because we know we have had substantial increases around Australia - that is, increases in the demand and cost of housing and in housing and population - there has been a 54 per cent cut in commonwealth funding. That is more than $600 million less for Australian public housing, and thousands of people are suffering the consequences. Members opposite do not want to hear that the federal Liberals have cut over half the funding over a 10-year period. It does not end there. Western Australia has felt the commonwealth’s actions. In 2004-05, the commonwealth provided only $81 million for untied community housing and crisis accommodation programs. This represented a reduction in real terms since 1996-97 of $35 million, or 43 per cent. This is a damning indictment on the commonwealth government. It is a massive reduction and its impact has been felt in Western Australia. Shamefully, it does not end there. Members would have heard the commonwealth minister Mal Brough criticising the states for underspending on Aboriginal housing. I looked up the facts. Who do members think is the major contributor to the underexpenditure on indigenous housing in Western Australia? It is the commonwealth. Since pooled funding commenced, Western Australia has never received the commonwealth component on Aboriginal housing and infrastructure funding on time. To get it on time, we would like to get it on 1 July. I would like to have the funding next week. I have written to Mal Brough and sent in the plan. The plan has been approved at officer level, from the state to the commonwealth. However, I am told it is sitting on Mal Brough’s desk. We want that money next week, because in 2004-05 this state received the money in September 2005. Shamefully, the funding for 2005-06 was received in March 2006. It is hardly any wonder that we could not spend 12 months of funding in three months. Receiving the funding three-quarters of the way through the year certainly explains the reason that the money could not be expended in that year and the reason that the money has had to be carried forward. All the money has been spent or carried forward. Mal Brough talks about helping indigenous Australians, particularly in remote indigenous communities. What he conveniently forgets to tell people is that that applies only so long as indigenous people do not live in town-based communities. As of 1 July next year, town-based communities will not qualify under the agreement with the commonwealth. Why? The answer is that the commonwealth does not consider town-based communities in Kununurra, Wyndham, Halls Creek, Wiluna, Derby and Broome. These towns are more than 1 000 kilometres from Perth, but they are not considered to be remote. According to the commonwealth, they will not comply as of July next year. Mal Brough and the commonwealth government have been talking rot. They have withdrawn funding and are now offering $130 million to cover a range of portfolios areas when they have clearly reduced the funding under the Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement, underfunded indigenous communities and they have never provided the state with the money on time.
Mrs M.H. ROBERTS : In a 10-year period in which we would expect a substantial increase in funding because we know we have had substantial increases around Australia - that is, increases in the demand and cost of housing and in housing and population - there has been a 54 per cent cut in commonwealth funding. That is more than $600 million less for Australian public housing, and thousands of people are suffering the consequences. Members opposite do not want to hear that the federal Liberals have cut over half the funding over a 10-year period. It does not end there. Western Australia has felt the commonwealth’s actions. In 2004-05, the commonwealth provided only $81 million for untied community housing and crisis accommodation programs. This represented a reduction in real terms since 1996-97 of $35 million, or 43 per cent. This is a damning indictment on the commonwealth government. It is a massive reduction and its impact has been felt in Western Australia. Shamefully, it does not end there. Members would have heard the commonwealth minister Mal Brough criticising the states for underspending on Aboriginal housing. I looked up the facts. Who do members think is the major contributor to the underexpenditure on indigenous housing in Western Australia? It is the commonwealth. Since pooled funding commenced, Western Australia has never received the commonwealth component on Aboriginal housing and infrastructure funding on time. To get it on time, we would like to get it on 1 July. I would like to have the funding next week. I have written to Mal Brough and sent in the plan. The plan has been approved at officer level, from the state to the commonwealth. However, I am told it is sitting on Mal Brough’s desk. We want that money next week, because in 2004-05 this state received the money in September 2005. Shamefully, the funding for 2005-06 was received in March 2006. It is hardly any wonder that we could not spend 12 months of funding in three months. Receiving the funding three-quarters of the way through the year certainly explains the reason that the money could not be expended in that year and the reason that the money has had to be carried forward. All the money has been spent or carried forward. Mal Brough talks about helping indigenous Australians, particularly in remote indigenous communities. What he conveniently forgets to tell people is that that applies only so long as indigenous people do not live in town-based communities. As of 1 July next year, town-based communities will not qualify under the agreement with the commonwealth. Why? The answer is that the commonwealth does not consider town-based communities in Kununurra, Wyndham, Halls Creek, Wiluna, Derby and Broome. These towns are more than 1 000 kilometres from Perth, but they are not considered to be remote. According to the commonwealth, they will not comply as of July next year. Mal Brough and the commonwealth government have been talking rot. They have withdrawn funding and are now offering $130 million to cover a range of portfolios areas when they have clearly reduced the funding under the Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement, underfunded indigenous communities and they have never provided the state with the money on time.
Western Australia has felt the commonwealth’s actions. In 2004-05, the commonwealth provided only $81 million for untied community housing and crisis accommodation programs. This represented a reduction in real terms since 1996-97 of $35 million, or 43 per cent. This is a damning indictment on the commonwealth government. It is a massive reduction and its impact has been felt in Western Australia. Shamefully, it does not end there. Members would have heard the commonwealth minister Mal Brough criticising the states for underspending on Aboriginal housing. I looked up the facts. Who do members think is the major contributor to the underexpenditure on indigenous housing in Western Australia? It is the commonwealth. Since pooled funding commenced, Western Australia has never received the commonwealth component on Aboriginal housing and infrastructure funding on time. To get it on time, we would like to get it on 1 July. I would like to have the funding next week. I have written to Mal Brough and sent in the plan. The plan has been approved at officer level, from the state to the commonwealth. However, I am told it is sitting on Mal Brough’s desk. We want that money next week, because in 2004-05 this state received the money in September 2005. Shamefully, the funding for 2005-06 was received in March 2006. It is hardly any wonder that we could not spend 12 months of funding in three months. Receiving the funding three-quarters of the way through the year certainly explains the reason that the money could not be expended in that year and the reason that the money has had to be carried forward. All the money has been spent or carried forward. Mal Brough talks about helping indigenous Australians, particularly in remote indigenous communities. What he conveniently forgets to tell people is that that applies only so long as indigenous people do not live in town-based communities. As of 1 July next year, town-based communities will not qualify under the agreement with the commonwealth. Why? The answer is that the commonwealth does not consider town-based communities in Kununurra, Wyndham, Halls Creek, Wiluna, Derby and Broome. These towns are more than 1 000 kilometres from Perth, but they are not considered to be remote. According to the commonwealth, they will not comply as of July next year. Mal Brough and the commonwealth government have been talking rot. They have withdrawn funding and are now offering $130 million to cover a range of portfolios areas when they have clearly reduced the funding under the Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement, underfunded indigenous communities and they have never provided the state with the money on time.
Members would have heard the commonwealth minister Mal Brough criticising the states for underspending on Aboriginal housing. I looked up the facts. Who do members think is the major contributor to the underexpenditure on indigenous housing in Western Australia? It is the commonwealth. Since pooled funding commenced, Western Australia has never received the commonwealth component on Aboriginal housing and infrastructure funding on time. To get it on time, we would like to get it on 1 July. I would like to have the funding next week. I have written to Mal Brough and sent in the plan. The plan has been approved at officer level, from the state to the commonwealth. However, I am told it is sitting on Mal Brough’s desk. We want that money next week, because in 2004-05 this state received the money in September 2005. Shamefully, the funding for 2005-06 was received in March 2006. It is hardly any wonder that we could not spend 12 months of funding in three months. Receiving the funding three-quarters of the way through the year certainly explains the reason that the money could not be expended in that year and the reason that the money has had to be carried forward. All the money has been spent or carried forward. Mal Brough talks about helping indigenous Australians, particularly in remote indigenous communities. What he conveniently forgets to tell people is that that applies only so long as indigenous people do not live in town-based communities. As of 1 July next year, town-based communities will not qualify under the agreement with the commonwealth. Why? The answer is that the commonwealth does not consider town-based communities in Kununurra, Wyndham, Halls Creek, Wiluna, Derby and Broome. These towns are more than 1 000 kilometres from Perth, but they are not considered to be remote. According to the commonwealth, they will not comply as of July next year. Mal Brough and the commonwealth government have been talking rot. They have withdrawn funding and are now offering $130 million to cover a range of portfolios areas when they have clearly reduced the funding under the Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement, underfunded indigenous communities and they have never provided the state with the money on time.
Mal Brough talks about helping indigenous Australians, particularly in remote indigenous communities. What he conveniently forgets to tell people is that that applies only so long as indigenous people do not live in town-based communities. As of 1 July next year, town-based communities will not qualify under the agreement with the commonwealth. Why? The answer is that the commonwealth does not consider town-based communities in Kununurra, Wyndham, Halls Creek, Wiluna, Derby and Broome. These towns are more than 1 000 kilometres from Perth, but they are not considered to be remote. According to the commonwealth, they will not comply as of July next year. Mal Brough and the commonwealth government have been talking rot. They have withdrawn funding and are now offering $130 million to cover a range of portfolios areas when they have clearly reduced the funding under the Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement, underfunded indigenous communities and they have never provided the state with the money on time.
Mrs M.H. ROBERTS replied: I thank the A+ member for Perth for the question. There is a very simple answer to what the commonwealth government is doing for indigenous and public housing; that is, very little other than steadily withdrawing funds. Often when we quote government figures in this house, members opposite say they are just our figures. Today I will refer to a quote from a 2003 report by the Australian Council of Social Service and National Shelter. My notes read - A substantial shift in housing support has taken place over the past decade away from the supply of low-cost public housing and community housing towards “in pocket” financial assistance. In the ten years to 2003-04, Commonwealth spending on Rent Assistance increased by 7% in real terms to $1.92 billion while base grant funding to the Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement (CSHA) - Members opposite do not want to hear this - decreased by 54% to $1.28 billion. The SPEAKER : I call to order the member for Vasse for the third time. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS : In a 10-year period in which we would expect a substantial increase in funding because we know we have had substantial increases around Australia - that is, increases in the demand and cost of housing and in housing and population - there has been a 54 per cent cut in commonwealth funding. That is more than $600 million less for Australian public housing, and thousands of people are suffering the consequences. Members opposite do not want to hear that the federal Liberals have cut over half the funding over a 10-year period. It does not end there. Western Australia has felt the commonwealth’s actions. In 2004-05, the commonwealth provided only $81 million for untied community housing and crisis accommodation programs. This represented a reduction in real terms since 1996-97 of $35 million, or 43 per cent. This is a damning indictment on the commonwealth government. It is a massive reduction and its impact has been felt in Western Australia. Shamefully, it does not end there. Members would have heard the commonwealth minister Mal Brough criticising the states for underspending on Aboriginal housing. I looked up the facts. Who do members think is the major contributor to the underexpenditure on indigenous housing in Western Australia? It is the commonwealth. Since pooled funding commenced, Western Australia has never received the commonwealth component on Aboriginal housing and infrastructure funding on time. To get it on time, we would like to get it on 1 July. I would like to have the funding next week. I have written to Mal Brough and sent in the plan. The plan has been approved at officer level, from the state to the commonwealth. However, I am told it is sitting on Mal Brough’s desk. We want that money next week, because in 2004-05 this state received the money in September 2005. Shamefully, the funding for 2005-06 was received in March 2006. It is hardly any wonder that we could not spend 12 months of funding in three months. Receiving the funding three-quarters of the way through the year certainly explains the reason that the money could not be expended in that year and the reason that the money has had to be carried forward. All the money has been spent or carried forward. Mal Brough talks about helping indigenous Australians, particularly in remote indigenous communities. What he conveniently forgets to tell people is that that applies only so long as indigenous people do not live in town-based communities. As of 1 July next year, town-based communities will not qualify under the agreement with the commonwealth. Why? The answer is that the commonwealth does not consider town-based communities in Kununurra, Wyndham, Halls Creek, Wiluna, Derby and Broome. These towns are more than 1 000 kilometres from Perth, but they are not considered to be remote. According to the commonwealth, they will not comply as of July next year. Mal Brough and the commonwealth government have been talking rot. They have withdrawn funding and are now offering $130 million to cover a range of portfolios areas when they have clearly reduced the funding under the Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement, underfunded indigenous communities and they have never provided the state with the money on time.
I thank the A+ member for Perth for the question. There is a very simple answer to what the commonwealth government is doing for indigenous and public housing; that is, very little other than steadily withdrawing funds. Often when we quote government figures in this house, members opposite say they are just our figures. Today I will refer to a quote from a 2003 report by the Australian Council of Social Service and National Shelter. My notes read - A substantial shift in housing support has taken place over the past decade away from the supply of low-cost public housing and community housing towards “in pocket” financial assistance. In the ten years to 2003-04, Commonwealth spending on Rent Assistance increased by 7% in real terms to $1.92 billion while base grant funding to the Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement (CSHA) - Members opposite do not want to hear this - decreased by 54% to $1.28 billion. The SPEAKER : I call to order the member for Vasse for the third time. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS : In a 10-year period in which we would expect a substantial increase in funding because we know we have had substantial increases around Australia - that is, increases in the demand and cost of housing and in housing and population - there has been a 54 per cent cut in commonwealth funding. That is more than $600 million less for Australian public housing, and thousands of people are suffering the consequences. Members opposite do not want to hear that the federal Liberals have cut over half the funding over a 10-year period. It does not end there. Western Australia has felt the commonwealth’s actions. In 2004-05, the commonwealth provided only $81 million for untied community housing and crisis accommodation programs. This represented a reduction in real terms since 1996-97 of $35 million, or 43 per cent. This is a damning indictment on the commonwealth government. It is a massive reduction and its impact has been felt in Western Australia. Shamefully, it does not end there. Members would have heard the commonwealth minister Mal Brough criticising the states for underspending on Aboriginal housing. I looked up the facts. Who do members think is the major contributor to the underexpenditure on indigenous housing in Western Australia? It is the commonwealth. Since pooled funding commenced, Western Australia has never received the commonwealth component on Aboriginal housing and infrastructure funding on time. To get it on time, we would like to get it on 1 July. I would like to have the funding next week. I have written to Mal Brough and sent in the plan. The plan has been approved at officer level, from the state to the commonwealth. However, I am told it is sitting on Mal Brough’s desk. We want that money next week, because in 2004-05 this state received the money in September 2005. Shamefully, the funding for 2005-06 was received in March 2006. It is hardly any wonder that we could not spend 12 months of funding in three months. Receiving the funding three-quarters of the way through the year certainly explains the reason that the money could not be expended in that year and the reason that the money has had to be carried forward. All the money has been spent or carried forward. Mal Brough talks about helping indigenous Australians, particularly in remote indigenous communities. What he conveniently forgets to tell people is that that applies only so long as indigenous people do not live in town-based communities. As of 1 July next year, town-based communities will not qualify under the agreement with the commonwealth. Why? The answer is that the commonwealth does not consider town-based communities in Kununurra, Wyndham, Halls Creek, Wiluna, Derby and Broome. These towns are more than 1 000 kilometres from Perth, but they are not considered to be remote. According to the commonwealth, they will not comply as of July next year. Mal Brough and the commonwealth government have been talking rot. They have withdrawn funding and are now offering $130 million to cover a range of portfolios areas when they have clearly reduced the funding under the Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement, underfunded indigenous communities and they have never provided the state with the money on time.
A substantial shift in housing support has taken place over the past decade away from the supply of low-cost public housing and community housing towards “in pocket” financial assistance. In the ten years to 2003-04, Commonwealth spending on Rent Assistance increased by 7% in real terms to $1.92 billion while base grant funding to the Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement (CSHA) - Members opposite do not want to hear this - decreased by 54% to $1.28 billion. The SPEAKER : I call to order the member for Vasse for the third time. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS : In a 10-year period in which we would expect a substantial increase in funding because we know we have had substantial increases around Australia - that is, increases in the demand and cost of housing and in housing and population - there has been a 54 per cent cut in commonwealth funding. That is more than $600 million less for Australian public housing, and thousands of people are suffering the consequences. Members opposite do not want to hear that the federal Liberals have cut over half the funding over a 10-year period. It does not end there. Western Australia has felt the commonwealth’s actions. In 2004-05, the commonwealth provided only $81 million for untied community housing and crisis accommodation programs. This represented a reduction in real terms since 1996-97 of $35 million, or 43 per cent. This is a damning indictment on the commonwealth government. It is a massive reduction and its impact has been felt in Western Australia. Shamefully, it does not end there. Members would have heard the commonwealth minister Mal Brough criticising the states for underspending on Aboriginal housing. I looked up the facts. Who do members think is the major contributor to the underexpenditure on indigenous housing in Western Australia? It is the commonwealth. Since pooled funding commenced, Western Australia has never received the commonwealth component on Aboriginal housing and infrastructure funding on time. To get it on time, we would like to get it on 1 July. I would like to have the funding next week. I have written to Mal Brough and sent in the plan. The plan has been approved at officer level, from the state to the commonwealth. However, I am told it is sitting on Mal Brough’s desk. We want that money next week, because in 2004-05 this state received the money in September 2005. Shamefully, the funding for 2005-06 was received in March 2006. It is hardly any wonder that we could not spend 12 months of funding in three months. Receiving the funding three-quarters of the way through the year certainly explains the reason that the money could not be expended in that year and the reason that the money has had to be carried forward. All the money has been spent or carried forward. Mal Brough talks about helping indigenous Australians, particularly in remote indigenous communities. What he conveniently forgets to tell people is that that applies only so long as indigenous people do not live in town-based communities. As of 1 July next year, town-based communities will not qualify under the agreement with the commonwealth. Why? The answer is that the commonwealth does not consider town-based communities in Kununurra, Wyndham, Halls Creek, Wiluna, Derby and Broome. These towns are more than 1 000 kilometres from Perth, but they are not considered to be remote. According to the commonwealth, they will not comply as of July next year. Mal Brough and the commonwealth government have been talking rot. They have withdrawn funding and are now offering $130 million to cover a range of portfolios areas when they have clearly reduced the funding under the Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement, underfunded indigenous communities and they have never provided the state with the money on time.
Members opposite do not want to hear this - decreased by 54% to $1.28 billion. The SPEAKER : I call to order the member for Vasse for the third time. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS : In a 10-year period in which we would expect a substantial increase in funding because we know we have had substantial increases around Australia - that is, increases in the demand and cost of housing and in housing and population - there has been a 54 per cent cut in commonwealth funding. That is more than $600 million less for Australian public housing, and thousands of people are suffering the consequences. Members opposite do not want to hear that the federal Liberals have cut over half the funding over a 10-year period. It does not end there. Western Australia has felt the commonwealth’s actions. In 2004-05, the commonwealth provided only $81 million for untied community housing and crisis accommodation programs. This represented a reduction in real terms since 1996-97 of $35 million, or 43 per cent. This is a damning indictment on the commonwealth government. It is a massive reduction and its impact has been felt in Western Australia. Shamefully, it does not end there. Members would have heard the commonwealth minister Mal Brough criticising the states for underspending on Aboriginal housing. I looked up the facts. Who do members think is the major contributor to the underexpenditure on indigenous housing in Western Australia? It is the commonwealth. Since pooled funding commenced, Western Australia has never received the commonwealth component on Aboriginal housing and infrastructure funding on time. To get it on time, we would like to get it on 1 July. I would like to have the funding next week. I have written to Mal Brough and sent in the plan. The plan has been approved at officer level, from the state to the commonwealth. However, I am told it is sitting on Mal Brough’s desk. We want that money next week, because in 2004-05 this state received the money in September 2005. Shamefully, the funding for 2005-06 was received in March 2006. It is hardly any wonder that we could not spend 12 months of funding in three months. Receiving the funding three-quarters of the way through the year certainly explains the reason that the money could not be expended in that year and the reason that the money has had to be carried forward. All the money has been spent or carried forward. Mal Brough talks about helping indigenous Australians, particularly in remote indigenous communities. What he conveniently forgets to tell people is that that applies only so long as indigenous people do not live in town-based communities. As of 1 July next year, town-based communities will not qualify under the agreement with the commonwealth. Why? The answer is that the commonwealth does not consider town-based communities in Kununurra, Wyndham, Halls Creek, Wiluna, Derby and Broome. These towns are more than 1 000 kilometres from Perth, but they are not considered to be remote. According to the commonwealth, they will not comply as of July next year. Mal Brough and the commonwealth government have been talking rot. They have withdrawn funding and are now offering $130 million to cover a range of portfolios areas when they have clearly reduced the funding under the Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement, underfunded indigenous communities and they have never provided the state with the money on time.
decreased by 54% to $1.28 billion. The SPEAKER : I call to order the member for Vasse for the third time. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS : In a 10-year period in which we would expect a substantial increase in funding because we know we have had substantial increases around Australia - that is, increases in the demand and cost of housing and in housing and population - there has been a 54 per cent cut in commonwealth funding. That is more than $600 million less for Australian public housing, and thousands of people are suffering the consequences. Members opposite do not want to hear that the federal Liberals have cut over half the funding over a 10-year period. It does not end there. Western Australia has felt the commonwealth’s actions. In 2004-05, the commonwealth provided only $81 million for untied community housing and crisis accommodation programs. This represented a reduction in real terms since 1996-97 of $35 million, or 43 per cent. This is a damning indictment on the commonwealth government. It is a massive reduction and its impact has been felt in Western Australia. Shamefully, it does not end there. Members would have heard the commonwealth minister Mal Brough criticising the states for underspending on Aboriginal housing. I looked up the facts. Who do members think is the major contributor to the underexpenditure on indigenous housing in Western Australia? It is the commonwealth. Since pooled funding commenced, Western Australia has never received the commonwealth component on Aboriginal housing and infrastructure funding on time. To get it on time, we would like to get it on 1 July. I would like to have the funding next week. I have written to Mal Brough and sent in the plan. The plan has been approved at officer level, from the state to the commonwealth. However, I am told it is sitting on Mal Brough’s desk. We want that money next week, because in 2004-05 this state received the money in September 2005. Shamefully, the funding for 2005-06 was received in March 2006. It is hardly any wonder that we could not spend 12 months of funding in three months. Receiving the funding three-quarters of the way through the year certainly explains the reason that the money could not be expended in that year and the reason that the money has had to be carried forward. All the money has been spent or carried forward. Mal Brough talks about helping indigenous Australians, particularly in remote indigenous communities. What he conveniently forgets to tell people is that that applies only so long as indigenous people do not live in town-based communities. As of 1 July next year, town-based communities will not qualify under the agreement with the commonwealth. Why? The answer is that the commonwealth does not consider town-based communities in Kununurra, Wyndham, Halls Creek, Wiluna, Derby and Broome. These towns are more than 1 000 kilometres from Perth, but they are not considered to be remote. According to the commonwealth, they will not comply as of July next year. Mal Brough and the commonwealth government have been talking rot. They have withdrawn funding and are now offering $130 million to cover a range of portfolios areas when they have clearly reduced the funding under the Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement, underfunded indigenous communities and they have never provided the state with the money on time.
The SPEAKER : I call to order the member for Vasse for the third time. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS : In a 10-year period in which we would expect a substantial increase in funding because we know we have had substantial increases around Australia - that is, increases in the demand and cost of housing and in housing and population - there has been a 54 per cent cut in commonwealth funding. That is more than $600 million less for Australian public housing, and thousands of people are suffering the consequences. Members opposite do not want to hear that the federal Liberals have cut over half the funding over a 10-year period. It does not end there. Western Australia has felt the commonwealth’s actions. In 2004-05, the commonwealth provided only $81 million for untied community housing and crisis accommodation programs. This represented a reduction in real terms since 1996-97 of $35 million, or 43 per cent. This is a damning indictment on the commonwealth government. It is a massive reduction and its impact has been felt in Western Australia. Shamefully, it does not end there. Members would have heard the commonwealth minister Mal Brough criticising the states for underspending on Aboriginal housing. I looked up the facts. Who do members think is the major contributor to the underexpenditure on indigenous housing in Western Australia? It is the commonwealth. Since pooled funding commenced, Western Australia has never received the commonwealth component on Aboriginal housing and infrastructure funding on time. To get it on time, we would like to get it on 1 July. I would like to have the funding next week. I have written to Mal Brough and sent in the plan. The plan has been approved at officer level, from the state to the commonwealth. However, I am told it is sitting on Mal Brough’s desk. We want that money next week, because in 2004-05 this state received the money in September 2005. Shamefully, the funding for 2005-06 was received in March 2006. It is hardly any wonder that we could not spend 12 months of funding in three months. Receiving the funding three-quarters of the way through the year certainly explains the reason that the money could not be expended in that year and the reason that the money has had to be carried forward. All the money has been spent or carried forward. Mal Brough talks about helping indigenous Australians, particularly in remote indigenous communities. What he conveniently forgets to tell people is that that applies only so long as indigenous people do not live in town-based communities. As of 1 July next year, town-based communities will not qualify under the agreement with the commonwealth. Why? The answer is that the commonwealth does not consider town-based communities in Kununurra, Wyndham, Halls Creek, Wiluna, Derby and Broome. These towns are more than 1 000 kilometres from Perth, but they are not considered to be remote. According to the commonwealth, they will not comply as of July next year. Mal Brough and the commonwealth government have been talking rot. They have withdrawn funding and are now offering $130 million to cover a range of portfolios areas when they have clearly reduced the funding under the Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement, underfunded indigenous communities and they have never provided the state with the money on time.
Mrs M.H. ROBERTS : In a 10-year period in which we would expect a substantial increase in funding because we know we have had substantial increases around Australia - that is, increases in the demand and cost of housing and in housing and population - there has been a 54 per cent cut in commonwealth funding. That is more than $600 million less for Australian public housing, and thousands of people are suffering the consequences. Members opposite do not want to hear that the federal Liberals have cut over half the funding over a 10-year period. It does not end there. Western Australia has felt the commonwealth’s actions. In 2004-05, the commonwealth provided only $81 million for untied community housing and crisis accommodation programs. This represented a reduction in real terms since 1996-97 of $35 million, or 43 per cent. This is a damning indictment on the commonwealth government. It is a massive reduction and its impact has been felt in Western Australia. Shamefully, it does not end there. Members would have heard the commonwealth minister Mal Brough criticising the states for underspending on Aboriginal housing. I looked up the facts. Who do members think is the major contributor to the underexpenditure on indigenous housing in Western Australia? It is the commonwealth. Since pooled funding commenced, Western Australia has never received the commonwealth component on Aboriginal housing and infrastructure funding on time. To get it on time, we would like to get it on 1 July. I would like to have the funding next week. I have written to Mal Brough and sent in the plan. The plan has been approved at officer level, from the state to the commonwealth. However, I am told it is sitting on Mal Brough’s desk. We want that money next week, because in 2004-05 this state received the money in September 2005. Shamefully, the funding for 2005-06 was received in March 2006. It is hardly any wonder that we could not spend 12 months of funding in three months. Receiving the funding three-quarters of the way through the year certainly explains the reason that the money could not be expended in that year and the reason that the money has had to be carried forward. All the money has been spent or carried forward. Mal Brough talks about helping indigenous Australians, particularly in remote indigenous communities. What he conveniently forgets to tell people is that that applies only so long as indigenous people do not live in town-based communities. As of 1 July next year, town-based communities will not qualify under the agreement with the commonwealth. Why? The answer is that the commonwealth does not consider town-based communities in Kununurra, Wyndham, Halls Creek, Wiluna, Derby and Broome. These towns are more than 1 000 kilometres from Perth, but they are not considered to be remote. According to the commonwealth, they will not comply as of July next year. Mal Brough and the commonwealth government have been talking rot. They have withdrawn funding and are now offering $130 million to cover a range of portfolios areas when they have clearly reduced the funding under the Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement, underfunded indigenous communities and they have never provided the state with the money on time.
Western Australia has felt the commonwealth’s actions. In 2004-05, the commonwealth provided only $81 million for untied community housing and crisis accommodation programs. This represented a reduction in real terms since 1996-97 of $35 million, or 43 per cent. This is a damning indictment on the commonwealth government. It is a massive reduction and its impact has been felt in Western Australia. Shamefully, it does not end there. Members would have heard the commonwealth minister Mal Brough criticising the states for underspending on Aboriginal housing. I looked up the facts. Who do members think is the major contributor to the underexpenditure on indigenous housing in Western Australia? It is the commonwealth. Since pooled funding commenced, Western Australia has never received the commonwealth component on Aboriginal housing and infrastructure funding on time. To get it on time, we would like to get it on 1 July. I would like to have the funding next week. I have written to Mal Brough and sent in the plan. The plan has been approved at officer level, from the state to the commonwealth. However, I am told it is sitting on Mal Brough’s desk. We want that money next week, because in 2004-05 this state received the money in September 2005. Shamefully, the funding for 2005-06 was received in March 2006. It is hardly any wonder that we could not spend 12 months of funding in three months. Receiving the funding three-quarters of the way through the year certainly explains the reason that the money could not be expended in that year and the reason that the money has had to be carried forward. All the money has been spent or carried forward. Mal Brough talks about helping indigenous Australians, particularly in remote indigenous communities. What he conveniently forgets to tell people is that that applies only so long as indigenous people do not live in town-based communities. As of 1 July next year, town-based communities will not qualify under the agreement with the commonwealth. Why? The answer is that the commonwealth does not consider town-based communities in Kununurra, Wyndham, Halls Creek, Wiluna, Derby and Broome. These towns are more than 1 000 kilometres from Perth, but they are not considered to be remote. According to the commonwealth, they will not comply as of July next year. Mal Brough and the commonwealth government have been talking rot. They have withdrawn funding and are now offering $130 million to cover a range of portfolios areas when they have clearly reduced the funding under the Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement, underfunded indigenous communities and they have never provided the state with the money on time.
Members would have heard the commonwealth minister Mal Brough criticising the states for underspending on Aboriginal housing. I looked up the facts. Who do members think is the major contributor to the underexpenditure on indigenous housing in Western Australia? It is the commonwealth. Since pooled funding commenced, Western Australia has never received the commonwealth component on Aboriginal housing and infrastructure funding on time. To get it on time, we would like to get it on 1 July. I would like to have the funding next week. I have written to Mal Brough and sent in the plan. The plan has been approved at officer level, from the state to the commonwealth. However, I am told it is sitting on Mal Brough’s desk. We want that money next week, because in 2004-05 this state received the money in September 2005. Shamefully, the funding for 2005-06 was received in March 2006. It is hardly any wonder that we could not spend 12 months of funding in three months. Receiving the funding three-quarters of the way through the year certainly explains the reason that the money could not be expended in that year and the reason that the money has had to be carried forward. All the money has been spent or carried forward. Mal Brough talks about helping indigenous Australians, particularly in remote indigenous communities. What he conveniently forgets to tell people is that that applies only so long as indigenous people do not live in town-based communities. As of 1 July next year, town-based communities will not qualify under the agreement with the commonwealth. Why? The answer is that the commonwealth does not consider town-based communities in Kununurra, Wyndham, Halls Creek, Wiluna, Derby and Broome. These towns are more than 1 000 kilometres from Perth, but they are not considered to be remote. According to the commonwealth, they will not comply as of July next year. Mal Brough and the commonwealth government have been talking rot. They have withdrawn funding and are now offering $130 million to cover a range of portfolios areas when they have clearly reduced the funding under the Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement, underfunded indigenous communities and they have never provided the state with the money on time.
Mal Brough talks about helping indigenous Australians, particularly in remote indigenous communities. What he conveniently forgets to tell people is that that applies only so long as indigenous people do not live in town-based communities. As of 1 July next year, town-based communities will not qualify under the agreement with the commonwealth. Why? The answer is that the commonwealth does not consider town-based communities in Kununurra, Wyndham, Halls Creek, Wiluna, Derby and Broome. These towns are more than 1 000 kilometres from Perth, but they are not considered to be remote. According to the commonwealth, they will not comply as of July next year. Mal Brough and the commonwealth government have been talking rot. They have withdrawn funding and are now offering $130 million to cover a range of portfolios areas when they have clearly reduced the funding under the Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement, underfunded indigenous communities and they have never provided the state with the money on time.
Explore WA Government Data
Search the full archive in the free dashboard, or query programmatically via API.
Explore more
Government Gazette
Appointments, regulatory notices, planning changes.
Hansard
Debates, questions, speeches and sentiment.
Tabled Papers
Reports and documents tabled in Parliament.
Committees
Committee profiles and recent reports.
Regulations
Subsidiary legislation with filters and summaries.
Bills
Proposed laws and parliamentary progress.
Acts
Current WA legislation and summaries.
Explanatory Memoranda
Bills with EMs (text/PDF) available.
Members
MP profiles, party breakdown and rankings.
Pollie Rankings
Data-driven rankings across 19 categories.
Amendment Chains
Track how schemes and regulations evolve over time.