Public Works Committee: Better Neighbourhood Program

Ms DIGANCE (Elder) (11:02): I move:

That the 537^th report of the committee, entitled Better Neighbourhood Program—Program 1 Renewing Our Streets and Suburbs Initiative, be noted.

The original Better Neighbourhood Program commenced in 2002 to renew the ageing South Australian Housing Trust homes with new and more suitable dwellings. Houses on large blocks are demolished, blocks subdivided and some sold to fund the program. Other blocks are redeveloped with a mixture of two, three and four-bedroom homes. There is an increasing demand for smaller homes, so focus is given to two-bedroom dwellings on smaller, easier-care allotments.

The program covers 4,500 properties within 10 kilometres of the CBD, replacing new for old. It is a self-funding program. The aim of this specific project is to accelerate the program, targeting the redevelopment of 765 properties over a five-year period. In order to accelerate the program, the government is investing $11.413 million (GST exclusive)—a one-off injection of funds. The project is to be cost neutral over its life, that is, over the five-year period, $187.274 million (GST exclusive) is expected to generate from the sale of allotments, with expenditure of $187,137 million (GST exclusive) over the same period.

Seven hundred and thirteen new Housing Trust dwellings will be constructed and 899 allotments sold. In order to achieve no reduction in social housing whilst ensuring this program remains cost neutral and therefore viable, the complementary new building program will address the small shortfall currently anticipated in the number of dwellings. This potential shortfall was of concern to the committee, and we sought and received assurances from the department that this will be addressed by the new building program.

Specific details as to the exact location of a number of redevelopments to be undertaken in the outer years is currently being planned, as it is dependent on the timing, success and location of earlier builds; hence the committee will be following the progress of this project with interest. It is anticipated that the accelerated program will provide an increased stimulus to a range of sectors in our economy, including several land development and allied professionals, building designers and architects, construction and related industries.

It is estimated to boost employment by an average of 530 direct and indirect jobs per annum over the five-year period. The project will commence this financial year, with the five-year program concluding in 2019-20. Given this, and pursuant to section 12C of the Parliamentary Committees Act 1991, the Public Works Committee reports to parliament that it recommends the proposed public works.

Mr WHETSTONE (Chaffey) (11:05): I too rise to support the 537^th report entitled Better Neighbourhood Program. I will make a brief contribution considering the large amount of public housing that I have in the electorate of Chaffey. It is disappointing that this program, which is an initiative to upgrade public housing, is predominantly aimed at enhancing public housing in metropolitan Adelaide. I feel that the regions are being a little bit overlooked. Basically how it works is that the government will vacate tenants and demolish some of those existing homes that are in a state of disrepair. They will do minor subdivision works, resubdivide the land, sell a proportion of the land, and then build new public housing to create a new era of public housing.

Some concerns were raised about various council development plans and how they will impact. One concern that I do have overall is the current lengthy waiting list for public and emergency housing in South Australia. I could not see any evidence suggesting that the program will address those current waiting lists. What we did find out is that they are not increasing the number of social housing outcomes, but there are some that are on the waiting list and emergency list that do come into the housing created by the program if they are better suited or better matched to someone who is already within the program.

For some of the tenants who will be relocated from old homes to new homes under this program I think there has to be some consideration of their track record. Too often we see the damage and neglect to public housing from how it is treated: too much damage, too much vandalism, too much footprint that some of these public tenants leave. They are basically looking a gift horse in the mouth when they look at public housing. Once they leave, some of them leave a footprint and they need to be scrutinised. We do not want to see these new homes treated poorly, because it is a step in the right direction. For some of the older tenants in the older homes, the reason that we have to upgrade some of these homes is that they have been treated poorly for such a long time.

Overall, for program No. 1, I would like to think that the government would initiate a program 2 and target regional South Australian public housing, just like they have in metropolitan Adelaide, to give the region something that it deserves, and that is, equality across the state. I do note that the committee was supportive of this project, and I recommend it to the house.

Ms SANDERSON (Adelaide) (11:09): I would like to make a few brief comments as the shadow minister for social housing. When this policy was first announced, the government announced it as a renewal program and that certainly put a lot of fear through many of the people that I represent, given that my electorate is completely within 10 kilometres of the CBD and I have a large percentage of people who live in Housing Trust properties.

I think the government has learnt—I have seen over the last year—better ways to deal with people; however, I just want to place on the record some of the very damaging consultation or lack of consultation or how this was dealt with and the physical and emotional effects that that has on some of our most vulnerable people, particularly in Prospect where there are some larger homes. Certainly, if you were looking at this only as a profitable or cost-making process, you would think, 'Well, that's a 900 square metre block; let's knock it down and we can put three on there,' however, what you are failing to see is the importance of that home to that person and, as they said in The Castle, it is his home, it is their castle, it is not just a house.

Whilst the media will often highlight some of the people who are abusing the privilege of social housing, I would say 95 per cent (or higher) of the people who live in social housing really appreciate those houses and have turned them into their homes. Many of the people who I have dealt with in Prospect have planted trees and gardens and have made minor renovations to their homes. One lady took in a foster child and he is now enrolled at the local school, so when she received the notice that she might be moved, it sent her into quite a panic, as you would imagine. All of her plans for her future are based on living in that community with her foster child at the local school.

So this cannot be seen as purely profitable, like-for-like, because we are not even getting more social housing; this is only neutral—cost neutral and numbers neutral—so it does not actually benefit any more people, so we should definitely take into consideration the people who are living there.

We have one very sad and unfortunate case where the last email that a lady sent to my office before dying expressed her concern about being moved out of her home and out of her electorate, and that all of her ties and the only places where she felt comfortable were in Prospect, at the Prospect library and the Prospect community centre. Other than that, she was very scared of crowds and people, and that to move her would overwhelm her, and it was the last thing on her mind, unfortunately.

So I think that when the government comes up with a policy like this, the way that it is dealt with on the ground with individual people is the difference between a successful outcome and one that is very damaging to some of our most vulnerable people. I will certainly be keeping a close eye on it and welcome any feedback from my constituents who have any negative dealings under this program.

Ms DIGANCE (Elder) (11:12): I thank the member for Chaffey and the member for Adelaide for their contributions. I would like to acknowledge the member for Adelaide's concerns on behalf of her constituency and reassure her that these issues were raised at the committee as well, because there is concern over moving people when they have been living in a particular area for such a length of time.

The other issue that was raised by the committee and requested that attention be given to was communication about what happens in the area. In the electorate of Elder, for instance, there are a number of blocks that are vacant at the moment and, naturally enough, that does cause questions to be raised. A commitment has been given by the department that communication will come through to local members so we can let our constituency know what is happening with empty blocks and what is happening with the process. I thank my fellow committee members on the Public Works Committee for their commitment to this project, and also the witnesses, and recommend this report to the house.

Motion carried.