Mr NATHAN HAGARTY (Leppington) (17:29): I was not going to contribute to this public interest debate, but I heard the rhetoric of those opposite and thought it would be novel if someone who grew up in public housing made a contribution, so I add my two cents to the debate. I saw the video of the member for Newtown and the apartments or flats—depending on what you call them—that are being fenced off. I grew up in a very similar building in Cartwright—a three-storey walk-up in red brick. For about the first four or five years of my life, that was my home, as it was for many other people. But it is clear that homes like that become unfit for purpose. They have a life cycle, and we are faced with the option of repairing them or replacing them.
After I lived in Cartwright, I moved to Bonnyrigg, where I again lived in public housing. That estate is currently going through a similar transformation whereby, over the past 10 or 15 years, the previous houses have been knocked down and replaced with houses of much better quality. That housing is a mix of private and public. The research—both here and around the world—is that mix has better outcomes, including lower rates of teen pregnancy and higher rates of completing high school.
[Interruption from gallery]
Visitors in the gallery may laugh. That is the research, and it means that we have better neighbourhoods. In fact, I grew up in that housing estate during the heroin epidemic of the 1990s. It had a Radburn design, which contributed to the crime and disadvantage.
Mr Edmond Atalla: It was a failed experiment.
Mr NATHAN HAGARTY: I thank the member for Mount Druitt. It was a failed experiment. The design in this case is best practice. The proposal is not a sell-off. It is not privatisation. The land is still publicly owned, as the member for Heffron made clear. There will be a mix of private and public housing, because we know that achieves the best outcome. I can imagine that it is heartbreaking to be pushed out of your home. My mother is going through the same situation at the moment. She still lives in that house in Bonnyrigg, and her section is the last section to be bulldozed. She will be forced to move and, to be frank, she does not want to. That is where she grew up. She has a large backyard and her garden. But the fact remains that the house is becoming unfit for purpose. It has serious issues, as do many others in that part of the world. That is why the previous Government initiated the Newleaf project to reform that area, and that is what is happening here.
I appreciate it is a very difficult circumstance to be forced to leave the place you call home, but let us insert some facts into this debate. I commend the member for Granville for her amendment. It is sensible, and it states facts. Unlike the original motion, it does not whip up a scare campaign. The Greens' colleagues in the other House are causing them serious embarrassment with things they are doing, such as getting into bed with Mark Latham and the Liberals. Because of that, a bill has now passed the Legislative Council that will allow uranium mining. The Greens are playing politics. They are suffering in the inner west, and they need to pull stunts like this one to get supporters on board. It is a scare campaign. It is not factual. I commend the member for Granville for her factual motion. It is about time some facts were inserted into this debate.
