Public Works Committee: Affordable Housing Initiative

Mr CREGAN (Kavel) (11:37): I move:

That the 125^th report of the committee for the Fifty-Fourth Parliament, entitled Affordable Housing Initiative, be noted.

The South Australian Housing Authority's Affordable Housing provided a revised submission to the committee in relation to this project, and the committee conducted a hearing on 15 October 2020. The committee has taken in additional information to assist it in its deliberations, and the committee has formed the view that it recommends the project.

The affordable housing initiative is a five-year public sector initiative commencing in late 2020 and concluding in 2025. It will deliver 1,000 new affordable home ownership opportunities across metropolitan Adelaide and regional South Australia for low to moderate income earners in South Australia. The affordable housing initiative is a program that will comprise several projects over its five-year time frame. These projects will range in size from small-scale projects delivering up to five dwellings through to larger scale projects and a housing mix of predominantly two and three-bedroom houses subject to market forces.

The affordable housing initiative targeted locations including the Adelaide central business district, inner and middle suburban areas, outer suburban areas and 10 per cent in key regional centres. The affordable housing initiative is self-funding and is projected to generate a small surplus of $15.6 million which will be reinvested in other social and affordable housing initiatives in the state. A total expenditure incurred over the program is $407.3 million and it includes an escalation per annum.

The committee examined written and oral evidence in relation to this project and received assurances that the appropriate consultation in relation to this project had been undertaken. The committee is satisfied that the proposal has been subject to the appropriate agency consultation and meets the criteria for the examination of projects as described in the Parliamentary Committees Act 1991. Based on the evidence considered, and pursuant to section 12C of the Parliamentary Committees Act, the Public Works Committee recommends the scope of proposed public works to the house.

Ms COOK (Hurtle Vale) (11:41): I rise to contribute to this important project and, again, it is a mixed message that I have for the government. Thank you to the Presiding Member, the member for Kavel, and the rest of the committee members who, as the Public Works Committee, provided a great deal of scrutiny and thought into the process of this project. It is not insignificant in terms of its being 1,000 affordable home ownership opportunities. It is quite significant.

The fact that, again, they had to be like the schoolteacher and mark the work is disappointing. It is worth noting that this project originally came to the committee with version 1 in September 2020 and did not have enough detail from the Housing Authority. Then on 22 September we saw version 2 come to the committee and, again, we had a number of questions and issues outlined that were not remedied from the first version, so it was sent back again. Then we had version 3. This is sounding a bit like the Apple iPhone; we are up to version 3.

On 7 October, another submission came to the committee and it bounced back again, and then we had another week and, on 12 October, we got version 4. If I recall, during questioning on this submission, it was discovered that there was reference to the cabinet documents within it, so the copy-paste function of the author and the checking executives and ministers ticking off were failing, and it was a bit embarrassing to be frank.

But again I would question why this is happening. What is happening from the minister down to executive down to project people for us to see a department, which previously had a wealth of experience and high-quality project managers who have delivered large budget items over previous years, now struggling to put a submission in this year—not one submission but two—after doing very little for the last three years in terms of projects? So they have had a while and we saw this bounce backwards and forwards four times.

In terms of affordable housing, we are seeing a housing strategy by the current government that focuses on the delivery of 1,000 affordable homes for the community as a cornerstone for its solutions to homelessness and people in our community struggling with housing insecurity. I worry it is going to get worse, given the movement of people from supplementary benefits during COVID to a lower income, unstable employment or no income at all afterwards.

The other day, the report from National Shelter showed we were the most unaffordable rental capital city on the mainland. I think all of this is a perfect storm. I talked about this the other day. If we do not get the products that fund these opportunities right, and if we do not get the process for building and marketing these products and the pricepoint for the products right, we are going to see a disaster.

I know that the unaffordable housing crisis is not isolated to South Australia; it is a nationwide issue, but we are the worst performers. We are not performing at a level acceptable for our community. Affordable housing, public housing and shelter should be things that a government of any colour delivers—Labor or Liberal—and it needs to be at the forefront of the policy platform.

The issue here is how effective this strategy is really going to be. We have these 1,000 affordable homes. In the housing strategy document, we have a reference to 20,000 housing outcomes without any explanation of how that is being achieved. I am not sure where this all interfaces with that, but there seems to be a big gap between this project and where we need to be. I am not sure where the other builds are because the previous report that was tabled does not deliver large numbers and I believe these are part of this in terms of total numbers.

The other affordable initiative we recently identified as being a failure is the nine homes for older women. Is it the same process to market and sell? Are the same assumptions being made to deliver that $15 million revenue which could be reinvested? Are the same assumptions being made that all those properties are going to sell?

We have 1,000 homes on the affordable list to be sold. There were nine homes in the women's targeted program. There were 51 inquires, 22 people were eligible to buy and only three out of those nine homes transitioned to sale in that target market. If we look at a ratio, I think it is around one-third. So we are looking at 330 or so of these 1,000 affordable houses ending up in the target market.

Because of the way the affordable program is delivered, the rest of those houses only have to be listed to that target market for a month or so and then they are offered to the open market. If the government does not get its marketing pitch right, if it does not get its products right for the people who need the homes, and the finance to get into those homes, then we are not going to see them reach the affordable target anyway.

In terms of the affordable program and its pricepoint, $400,000 is pretty high. I have an adult daughter who is on a low to middle income and there is no way she is looking to purchase a house for that price. I think there is some mismatch in terms of where we are targeting and what we are going to achieve.

We learned in estimates that there were budget announcements about how HomeStart packages that are available and have been granted would achieve housing outcomes for people. We learned that less than 1 per cent of people in public housing managed to get an approved product. Over the last year, about 13 people in public housing managed to get an approved product to purchase and move into this home ownership. I do not want to say it is a fantasy, but it really is for some people because they do not have opportunities available to them and the products are not matching them.

We need to see aggressive marketing, more education, a review of the products and more diligence, as shown by the Public Works Committee on this particular project, to say, 'No, hang on a minute. You haven't got the detail right.' The whole Housing Authority needs to get the detail right. We need to see how it is going to reach out and get those people to buy because, I am sorry, it is not 'build it and they will come' in the movie Field of Dreams.

You have to make sure that people know about it. If I were not doing this, there is no way I would know about that program. You never hear about it, so thank you to the Public Works Committee for the scrutiny they have shown because we got much more detail and information than we ever get out of question time.

I hope that the pricepoint is looked at, and that the products are looked at, and that these reflect the fact that 95 per cent of people living in public housing are the recipient of government benefits. Really, it is whimsy to think that they can afford to just go to the bank and get a loan. It is just not going to happen. I thank the Public Works Committee for the report and look forward to seeing what happens over the next 'ether' five years when the houses start to appear.

Mr CREGAN (Kavel) (11:51): I thank the member for her contribution and refer to my earlier remarks.

Motion carried.