I oppose the Environmental Planning and Assessment Amendment (Affordable Housing) Bill 2024, brought forward by the member for Newtown. In summary, the bill seeks to amend the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act [EP&A Act] and the housing State environmental planning policy [SEPP] to transfer the definition of ''affordable housing" from the SEPP to the Act, and to make all affordable housing "in perpetuity". The bill also seeks to create an affordable housing register across New South Wales that will keep track of all the affordable homes that exist and are built, and will require that this register be established through the Act under the responsibility of the relevant Minister, which in this case is the Minister for Planning and Public Spaces.
As other members have mentioned, theory is one thing but practice is another. While this sounds good in theory, in the real world where I live, out in Leppington, that will not work. As the Government Whip, I spend quite a few hours in the Chamber. I am usually the first in and the last to leave. This place can have an effect on members. They do need to get back to their electorates from time to time and ground themselves with real people and real problems, and hear about what is going on. Unfortunately, I do not believe the bill will deliver more affordable homes. It will in fact create a negative impact on the Government's ability to do what it wants to do—and what The Greens want done—and that is to develop, deliver and manage social and affordable housing projects through Homes NSW. The reason for that is—and that is what I will focus on in my contribution—around the issues of flexibility and adaptability when it comes to affordable housing. Flexibility and adaptability are lost by pushing the Minister's powers from the SEPP into the Act.
Parliament sits only 17 or 18 weeks a year, and legislation is difficult to pass. It is a long process and then the bill has to go to the other place. When legislation is in the other place, all bets are off. We have an urgent bill that we have to get through. We are waiting here while they take a break, come back and then are off again for supper. We cannot have a situation where affordable housing and the housing crisis is left up to the legislative discretion of those in the other place. That is why the SEPP is the most appropriate instrument for those kinds of things. Also the bill does not consider the reality and cost of managing social housing and affordable housing. I cannot blame The Greens for this—
Mr Stephen Kamper: It is a management issue.
Mr NATHAN HAGARTY: It is a management issue. The reason for that is they do not understand how the market works. Buildings and homes do reach the end of their useful life. The member for Liverpool, who is in the Green Valley housing estate, is well aware of that. When that happens, the providers will work out what they want to do. They may dispose of them; they may redevelop them. This ensures that stock is up to date, and we do not have a situation where, 30 years from now, we have an old fibro house in Miller still standing but in need of desperate repairs because it was put in perpetuity because of the bill. I grew up in public housing out in Bonnyrigg. That whole area is going through a regeneration project. The stock that was built in the 1980s is being knocked down and redeveloped. The people who live there have first dibs to move back to one of those new homes. It was once a neighbourhood/suburb that had social issues. I experienced those; I saw it with my neighbours—
Ms Charishma Kaliyanda: You were probably responsible for them.
Mr NATHAN HAGARTY: I was probably responsible for a few of them. My classmates and I saw some of those social issues in my public school. Some fantastic work has been done regenerating that entire suburb. The way new neighbourhoods are designed means they provide much greater amenity. They even have some private ownership. Research shows that a mix of public and private housing results in better outcomes for the people who live in those areas. That is one of the reasons we need to give community housing providers that ability—it is basic asset management.
Community housing providers need to balance vacancies and turnover between available homes and people who need them, but the bill would remove the ability of the community housing providers to do exactly that. In the long term it would remove the ability to discard and rebuild old stock. Who knows—those old houses in Bonnyrigg might still be standing today had this bill passed years ago. We cannot have that. That is why I oppose the bill. Our reforms will provide a steady pipeline of developers to build affordable housing, alongside the Government, on an ongoing basis—even some housing that has been held for 15 years. That way we can ensure the perpetuity of affordable housing as a category of housing, rather than being linked to an actual address and a physical asset.
While well meaning, the bill simply will not work and will take us backwards. The Government is working towards goals like the ability to refresh stock, and redevelop suburbs and ensure that tenants within social housing get some of the best housing. They need that in order to thrive and achieve great things, such as I have done as a product of public housing myself. I turn to the topic of grandstanding, which a number of members have spoken about. I dug up the Hansard, and the member for Newtown has been a bit upset about this. The phrase "woeful lack of ambition" was used in relation to successive governments. The other issue in relation to grandstanding is about some comments that were made about the member for Balmain and certain developments. We heard about Darling Street.
Despite the interjections from The Greens, this Government is committed to delivering more homes, unlike the Liberal Party. Our commitment has been backed up in the 2024-25 budget. We delivered $6.1 billion for social housing. That bears repeating. That is the single biggest investment in social housing in the State's history. I mentioned it earlier in my contribution but, as a product of public housing, I could not be prouder to be part of a government that holds that record. I will leave it at that, given the time. I will give the member for Newtown her moment in reply. It is easy to say one thing and then do the opposite. I support affordable housing and social housing, but I certainly do not support the bill.
