PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE: LOCHIEL PARK AFFORDABLE HOUSING

Ms CICCARELLO (Norwood) (11:31): I move:

That the 324^th report of the committee, on Lochiel Park Affordable Housing, be noted.

To demonstrate the principles of balanced residential development, the LMC invited Housing SA to engage in a collaborative venture to provide the minimum 15 per cent affordable housing component of the Lochiel Park development project. The South Australian Housing Trust will spend $7.5 million to acquire 2,712 square metres of land from the LMC and undertake a development of predominantly affordable housing at the Lochiel Park 'Model Green Village'. The development totals 25 dwellings made up of:

two three-bedroom townhouses to be sold to the private market, providing partial development funding;

four ground floor two-bedroom apartments with disability access which would provide special needs social housing to be retained by the Housing Trust and allocated to tenants;

one three-bedroom double-storey townhouse with disability access to wet areas and a bedroom on the ground floor to allow for housing a person with a disability within a family unit will be retained by the Housing Trust and allocated to tenants;

four first floor mews apartments provide a reduced land footprint and subsequent land value component that results in an affordable housing-for-sale component; and

four first floor two-bedroom apartments also to be for additional affordable sales.

The remaining 10 dwellings, comprising two two-bedroom townhouses and eight two-bedroom apartments, will be for sale in community title lots as affordable housing. Twenty-three of the dwellings will provide 13 opportunities in affordable housing and 10 opportunities suitable for affordable rental under the National Rental Affordability Scheme.

There is also a Commonwealth Housing Affordability Fund submission seeking subsidy of some aspects of the sustainable initiatives. If approved, this will increase the total number of rental outcomes. The two three-bedroom townhouses to be sold to the private market will provide development funding for the whole Housing SA development.

The overall residential development by LMC relies on the integrated open space amenity of wetlands, detention basin and tree-lined boulevards. The project area responds to this by providing pedestrian access through the site to open space and community gardens to the south-east of the site, whilst presenting a public street frontage that defines defensible private space within the development.

The development will incorporate leading-edge environmentally sustainable design technologies, including innovative stormwater, waste water and rainwater solutions, biodiversity and energy conservation measures and efficient building and urban design. The purpose of these initiatives is to demonstrate to the general public and the development industry that such desirable outcomes are economically achievable in significant land developments.

The development seeks to minimise the ecological footprint, maximise energy efficiency through building design and by applying sustainable technologies such as rainwater harvesting and electricity generation through photovoltaic installations. The intention of this project is to provide a safe, secure and vibrant environment in which social housing tenants and residents have access to a range of housing options to suit their needs.

The density of development exceeds that of the adjoining residential allotments, but it has been imperative in the concept design to provide aesthetics which reflect and integrate with the surrounding housing proposed by LMC, thus providing a seamless architecture. The development will provide a housing mix of affordable sale and social rental opportunities to meet increasing demands from those experiencing housing stress.

The range of housing outcomes includes one and two-bedroom apartments and two-bedroom townhouses and increases the choice for homeowners and those seeking rental properties. The project is expected to generate $5.64 million in revenue to partially offset the cost of the project. Consequently, the net cost will be $1.857 million. Based upon the evidence it has considered pursuant to section 12C of the Parliamentary Committees Act 1991, the Public Works Committee reports to parliament that it recommends the proposed public works.

Ms CHAPMAN (Bragg) (11:35): I rise to speak on this matter and not to dampen the enthusiasm for this project because all housing affordability projects are important. This project will develop 23 dwellings on a 25 dwelling site, two of which are to be sold off privately with the sale proceeds invested into this particular project. It is a $7.5 million project.

As the member for Norwood has pointed out, the proceeds from sales will be about $1.35 million and the balance of the $5.6 million that she spoke of is to come from sales to non-government organisations. Essentially, it is government land being developed and then sold off to NGOs to provide a large lump of it for affordable housing for people who are under some disadvantage in not being able to access private ownership or rental property and particularly those with disabilities, as has been enumerated in the report.

All that is to be welcomed, but I think what needs to be understood is that the direct cost of this is $7.5 million, and the only money actually recovered (not by the government but in the sense of net to public housing) is the $1.136 million that is proposed to be recovered from the two properties that are sold for private housing. The rest of it is really just a cost transfer to the NGO, so the debt for social housing will remain.

Notwithstanding that, the committee has recommended that this be supported, and I do not raise any objection to support for the project. I think we need to understand that essentially what we are doing is creating 23 affordable homes for disability and special needs people, but there will be a very substantial cost. The concern I raise is that the government is selling 800 homes and dwellings every year from Housing Trust stock, and we would need 40 of these developments every year just to cover what is being sold off.

Therefore, whilst we welcome this initiative, and other announcements that the Minister for Housing makes of 10, 12 or sometimes 20 in a year, we should understand that, on the other side of the balance sheet, 800 of these dwellings are being sold off every year and they are not being replaced. This is what we are getting instead, so I think we need to appreciate what that contribution really is and that the net loss of public housing stock to this state continues to be deplorable.

It is one thing for the government to say, 'This stock is no longer fit for requirement. It is not suitable for the tenants we have,' whether they be refugees, people with a disability, new immigrants, single parents who are struggling in a circumstance of poverty, people who are victims of domestic violence, people leaving prison—all of the people with high needs. What the government is doing in this project is to say, 'Well, we are going to have this green model village of 23 affordable houses but, on the other side of the ledger, we are selling 800.'

In this state, there are 30,000 people waiting on public housing lists—that is a combination of people with disability and high needs, including Aboriginal housing. Those 30,000 people sitting on our lists will get no comfort or joy from this report because we are talking about only 23 single or family units that will be accommodated. That is the scandalous record of the government's failure to make real inroads into our housing affordability problem.

For the last few years we have heard about the difficulty to access affordable rental properties for those who are completely alienated from private purchase opportunities because of the huge increase in the cost of homes. There has been a massive shortage of rental properties and a very high rental payment is required. So, we have a growing group of people in the community who do not have any particular disability other than the fact that they are low income earners. Historically, the South Australian Housing Trust has been the base upon which these people and their families have been able to have access to affordable homes and to reside independently and provide an environment for their family to grow in. That is no longer available; that is the truth of the situation.

I am very disappointed that the government, in announcing these projects, is not making a commitment to South Australia if it bulldozes one dwelling or a set of dwellings or leaves them empty, which is even more concerning. I remember travelling to Port Pirie a few months ago and finding whole streets of Housing Trust properties empty. Some of the windows were smashed and the houses were unoccupied and left vacant. I am absolutely appalled to think that these properties are not being repaired and re-occupied.

There are 30,000 people on the waiting list. In the electorate of my colleague in Murray Bridge we see empty homes and there are also empty properties in the member for Unley's area. I went to the Julia Farr Centre the other day, which is now occupied by Disability SA as a bureaucratic headquarters. Some services are still available on the site, but there are whole multistorey buildings there still empty. Again, governments that had control of land are selling it off, flogging it off to someone else, and not maintaining a commitment to affordable housing, which has always been needed in this state and which has grown exponentially in light of the factors that have been obvious in the last few years in the housing affordability debate.

Access to affordable land, the building costs and the costs of regulation are all factors that have been raised in the housing affordability debate. However, whatever the factors are (and there have been Senate inquiries into this), the bottom line is that well over 20 per cent—some argue as high as 30 per cent—of the residents of the state need to have access to some kind of subsidised or affordable housing, and this government has really abandoned its responsibility in the provision of that housing. It has called upon NGOs to make a contribution. It has called upon every church group in the state that I can think of to donate land to go into joint ventures with it.

I do not have any problem with that. I have previously commended the opportunity to enter into a joint venture with those that might have land or resources and could share in the service delivery of affordable housing. I have never had a problem with that. However, what is scandalous is that they shove it over there, as they are doing here—23 of these homes given to NGOs to be able to continue to provide this service—and then just wipe their hands of it. The LMC and the department, having done their bit, leave the problem to someone else. That is really not acceptable.

Recently, I attended a reception for one of the housing charities in this state. In fact, the oldest charity in South Australia is a charitable trust for the provision of homes for people. We have trusts such as the Wyatt Trust in South Australia. These are trusts and benevolent organisations that over the years have received significant contributions from generous South Australians to ensure that some property and homes are available.

Aged Cottage Homes Inc. is another valuable player in this field, which provides accommodation usually for widows, for single people who are aged (I think they have to have assets of less than $15,000). So, those who are asset poor in our community and are largely reliant on a pension or a very small income are given the service. I have a number of them in my electorate and they are across the metropolitan area. I recently attended its annual general meeting at Prospect. These are important organisations that continue to provide for our state. It is scandalous to think that the South Australian Housing Trust, which was developed in the 1930s, is all but under a fire sale by this government. So, I welcome this report, but we need 40 of these every year just to cover the homes that are being bulldozed and sold off by this government.

Mr PISONI (Unley) (11:45): I have some quick comments to make on the report. It is interesting that, between the writing of this report by the Public Works Committee and its tabling in the parliament, there has been a significant change in the economy and the industry. One of the major builders of the Lochiel Park project (which is a series of projects, obviously) has fallen victim to the current economic situation; and I am pleased that a couple of other builders have stepped in to take over the responsibilities of that builder so that other projects in the Lochiel Park precinct can be finished.

The important point I would like to raise is that, finally, after a quest of many months to establish the definition of affordable housing, we finally got out of those presenting evidence to the Public Works Committee that the figure for affordable housing is $216,000. Obviously, land value is a very important part of the process of achieving that and, in order to reduce the amount of land being used, designs are tweaked so that, for instance, rooms are built on top of garages. So the footprint can be very small, and that works very well for projects such as Lochiel Park, which is only a medium density project (I would not say that it is a high density one).

I am sure that we will see more medium density housing popping up in existing suburbs under the government's proposed plan announced this week. If it is managed well, it will work well, but the key is that it needs to be managed well. We need to ensure that we preserve the character and heritage of our older suburbs. One of the things people who visit Adelaide from interstate remark on is our beautiful stone homes in the inner suburbs such as Mile End and Unley—and I know that Steve Marshall has mentioned how important an issue it is in Norwood and in other inner ring suburbs around Adelaide. So, it is very important, of course, that we maintain the character and heritage. From surveys that I send out to constituents, whether or not people are agreeable to increased density, the consistent message that comes back is that they want to preserve the character and heritage of Unley. It is something that I know is important to my constituents, and it is important to all those living in the older character heritage suburbs particularly to the south and east of Adelaide.

That brings me to the government's attempt to spruik the affordable housing option for the Glenside site. It is interesting to note that land in Glenside is being valued at somewhere around $1,000 per square metre—and we heard our own housing bureaucrats tell us that land price plays a significant part in keeping housing affordable, because affordable housing needs to be achieved through the market. We have been told that it is not supposed to happen through government subsidies or subsidies elsewhere. However, 15 per cent of the land that is being sold off in Glenside must be put aside for affordable housing, so it is no surprise that we see that one of the purchasers of that land has put in an application for 10-storey buildings to go on the site in Glenside.

You can imagine how horrified those living in and around the Glenside site are about the prospect of a 10-storey building. We can see how the government has minimised the cost of land by introducing a very high density option for housing on the Glenside site. Of course, the value of that land changes significantly when existing planning laws are overridden by the government's desire to turn open space into cash for Treasury, where 10-storey buildings are proposed in order to make the best return possible for government and the best return possible for developers, but not the best outcome for those living around the Glenside site, whether they be at Eastwood, Frewville, Glenside or Parkside. They are not only losing precious open space but also seeing increased density in housing in and around what is a lower-medium density housing suburb.

Those living in Main Street, Frewville, already have enormous traffic problems with cars speeding up and down the street. Main Street is a narrow street which carries a lot of traffic every hour. I was amazed at the number of cars I counted in the three hours it took me to doorknock the area on a Saturday morning several months ago. It was extraordinary. On a weekend literally hundreds of cars were using Main Street at the time. It is difficult for residents to park their cars on both sides of Main Street, and this situation will only get worse, because this will be the feeder street for the 10-storey development proposed for that block.

In order to meet that $216,000 price tag, I foresee an enormous compromise in housing style and housing type in the new development site which has been proposed by the government and which the government is moving forward with. I recall minister Gago in the other place saying that it is necessary to sell the land at Glenside in order to take pressure off the urban boundary. I am paraphrasing a little there, but that is the emphasis she was making. Her only concern was for the urban boundary, not the nurturing of open space and immediate amenity for those living in and around the Glenside district.

I support the 324^th report of the Public Works Committee, entitled 'Lochiel Park Affordable Housing', but I have used the opportunity to point out the concerns and complexity surrounding affordable housing projects, if they are not managed well. They can cause enormous concern and disruption to existing residents if they are not managed well; and I do not believe that the Glenside site and the Glenside sale have been managed well at all.

Ms CICCARELLO (Norwood) (11:53): I thank members of the opposition for their wide-ranging ramblings on this particular issue, not confining themselves to Lochiel Park. I point out that the former Liberal government in 1988 was providing only 50 new public houses. I remind members on both sides that through existing programs in the budget this year the state government will fund nearly 700 homes, particularly for people on low incomes and at risk of homelessness and for people with disability. The homes will include 407 new social housing dwellings, with 31 earmarked for people with disabilities, and another $25 million from the Affordable Housing Innovations Fund will go towards another 240 homes. Almost $110 million will help to maintain public housing stock, and this investment will also be a combined effort from the state and federal governments. Our government certainly has a great record of providing public housing and will continue to do so until we reach a figure of 2,000, which is certainly not what the previous government had done.

Motion carried.