Debate resumed from 24 September 2009.

The Hon. IAN WEST [2.51 p.m.]: The Minister for Housing, Minister for Western Sydney, and Minister Assisting the Minister for Transport and Roads, the Hon. David Borger, referred to the Standing Committee on Social Issues the inquiry into policies and programs outside mainstream public housing that are being implemented to reduce homelessness and increase low-cost rental accommodation for key workers. In September 2009 the committee reported to this House. The terms of reference required the committee to examine ways to reduce homelessness and increase rental accommodation for key workers outside mainstream public housing. However, the committee found itself in a position where it was unable to quarantine public housing from its considerations, as public housing is an essential part of the mix of social housing.

Housing NSW is the largest provider of social housing in Australia, with a portfolio of over 130,000 dwellings. Evidence shows there is a continuum of need for housing that reaches right across the housing sector to address requirements effectively in the whole of the housing sector. The committee's inquiry focused on the availability of affordable rental accommodation as a means of reducing homelessness and addressing the needs of key workers. The committee recognised that policies aimed at reducing homelessness must also address the underlying cause of homelessness and prevent people from becoming homeless in the first place, particularly in relation to domestic violence. The report does not seek to provide all the answers to every issue, especially those relating to short-term acute housing needs.

The inquiry was not directed towards primary homelessness; rather, it related more specifically to secondary homelessness where the lack of affordable housing in appropriate locations has a major impact on tenants and the wider community. In response to the call for submissions, the committee received 66 submissions to the inquiry. It received submissions from major stakeholders, including the New South Wales Government, various local governments, community groups, non-government organisations and, obviously, a number of important and interested individuals. During the initial stages of the inquiry the committee received a briefing from Mr Michael Newey, Group Executive of the Broadland Housing Association in the United Kingdom. Mr Newey specialises in social housing policy, corporate governance, business management and strategy development. Mr Newey's briefing to the committee was extremely informative and provided a valuable comparison of the Australian model, predominantly of the public provision of social housing compared with the developments that were occurring in the United Kingdom in regard to the community housing sector, et cetera.

The committee conducted six public hearings. It heard from a total of 36 witnesses from 32 organisations, and key witnesses from Housing NSW appeared before the committee on more than one occasion. Members of the committee visited City West Housing Pty Ltd at Pyrmont in Sydney to speak with several tenants and the general manager of City West Housing. The model employed by City West Housing is considered throughout the report and, as we know, is the subject of a bill that was presented in this place yesterday by Parliamentary Secretary the Hon. Mick Veitch. The committee also viewed the premises firsthand and was able to see the quality of housing provided for tenants by City West Housing. The history of social housing in Australia, and in New South Wales in particular, is extremely relevant because it outlines the changing nature of public housing, its purpose and how it relates to tenants, providing a context for understanding the contemporary issues and responses that are being made by various instrumentalities, authorities, governments, et cetera across the length and breadth of Australia and the globe.

The Housing Board of New South Wales was established in 1912 to provide homes for working families. In the 1940s the New South Wales Housing Commission was established and more than 12,000 homes were built. In the post-war reconstruction of the 1950s the focus moved to housing for returned soldiers as well as traditional working families. Although it currently provides rental accommodation for people on very low incomes, public housing was not originally envisaged as a welfare program. Previously, although there was provision for lower rents for people on low incomes, public housing aimed to create an affordable and secure base from which tenants could build or rebuild their lives. Living in a stable environment enabled people to take up work, to build assets for their families and to become self-sufficient.

In the 1960s high-rise apartments were erected and broadacre developments were established in areas such as Minto, Macquarie Fields, Green Valley and Mount Druitt, and with increased demand during the 1970s public housing became more targeted. Eligibility became means tested and soon after placements were prioritised on the basis of relative need. Over the next few decades the definition of "relative need" became very interesting. In the early 1980s applicants for public housing had changed from the typical nuclear working-class family to single people, sole parents, homeless and older people, and people with disabilities. From late 1987 onwards, single people and people needing support services to live independently became eligible for public housing for the first time. Demand from pensioner and other beneficiary groups continued to increase throughout the 1980s and demand was further increased by deinstitutionalisation, which created an increase in the number of people needing support to live independently.

The community housing sector was established in the 1980s with the commencement in 1982 of the Community Tenant Scheme and in 1984 of the Local and Community Housing Program. Originally, community housing was viewed as a temporary transitional arrangement for people waiting for public housing. But, over time, due to the increased demand for public housing and the lack of capacity within the public sector to provide a range of accommodation options and support services, community housing has become an alternative to public housing. Over the 10 years from 1997 to 2007 Commonwealth Government contributions to the States for public housing fell by 24 per cent, leading in 2008 to a $3.1 billion decline in investment. As a result there has been a decline in public housing stock. The Department of Premier and Cabinet identified potential links between the New South Wales framework and the State Plan and in 2009, during the inquiry, the New South Wales Government released "A Way Home: Reducing Homelessness in NSW—NSW Homelessness Action Plan 2009-2014."

During the inquiry a number of new initiatives were introduced at State and Federal levels, many of which indicated changes in the approach by all governments to addressing the housing and support needs of homeless people and those of low- and moderate-income households, including key workers and the communities they serve. These changes were led by the release in December 2008 of the Australian Government's white paper, "The Road Home: A national approach to reducing homelessness." This paper, in conjunction with intergovernmental agreements, including the National Affordable Housing Agreement and the Australian Government's Social Housing Initiative under the Nation Building Economic Stimulus Plan, signalled the introduction of the national approach to reducing homelessness.

The new approach is based on increasing the capacity of the community housing sector to provide more housing for those on low and moderate incomes. The committee was unable to comment on the effectiveness of a number of new initiatives as little evidence of their success or otherwise was available at the time. However, the committee's recommendations reflect the developments. The committee heard evidence about the need for a strategic long-term whole-of-government approach to address the housing requirements of low- to moderate-income households and to decrease the number of homeless people. Many of the committee's 17 recommendations address the need for long-term assessment of the effectiveness of the current initiatives and the need to tailor them to meet the requirements of local communities and provide adequate targeted resources to enable implementation and ongoing assessment of outcomes.

The committee heard repeatedly that a house is not a home and that it is a fundamental right of all people to have access to food, clothing and shelter. But this is not enough. People are also required to have access to education, employment and a safe and healthy environment. As the Prime Minister has stated on numerous occasions, along with many other State and Federal members of Parliament from both sides of the House, homelessness is everyone's responsibility. To provide a place where tenants can create a home it is essential for the government and non-government sectors to work together cooperatively to address their needs. This inquiry took place during a time of change and when many new initiatives at State and Federal levels were announced. The committee is pleased to see much-needed resources being allocated to affordable housing.

A number of recurring themes are long-running issues in the community housing sector and were also raised by the committee during its 2003 deliberations. In September 2001 the committee—comprising the chair, Jan Burnswoods; deputy chair, the Hon. Doug Moppett; Arthur Chesterfield-Evans; Amanda Fazio and me—commenced its inquiry into public housing. I am sure Jan Burnswoods will be pleased to hear that the Housing Amendment (Community Housing Providers) Bill 2010 has been introduced as it was a fundamental recommendation of that inquiry. The Hon. Doug Moppett was a person of the highest integrity and someone for whom I had the greatest respect. I used to marvel at his ability to make speeches without notes; his mastery of the English language was unbelievable. In the short time I served with him on the committee I realised how much I and the rest of the committee had to learn from a master of this House.

Recurring themes in the 2003 report include the need for housing providers to have the capacity to develop a balance sheet from which they can operate a sustainable organisation and to have title to properties—an issue that this bill addresses. The committee determined that these recurring issues can best be addressed through developing an overarching framework for the provision of affordable housing supported by the implementation of a local identification and implementation of solutions system. I thank everyone involved in preparing the report: the committee members and the secretariat. I look forward to hearing the response from the Government by the end of this month. I commend the report to the House.

The Hon. TREVOR KHAN [3.05 p.m.]: Clearly, the matters dealt with by the Standing Committee on Social Issues were of the utmost importance. They involved a number of recurring themes that have been the subject of previous inquiries and, indeed, the subject of discussion in this place from time to time. The extent of the problem in New South Wales is enormous. Day in and day out we see the enormity of the problem and its impact on people. It became clear early in our discussions that, essentially, there was no resolution to the affordable housing issue and no silver bullet to solve a problem that reflects at least partly the failure of government—putting aside politics as much as one can—over a lengthy period to address a number of important factors.

Let us examine what has become a catchphrase: the provision of affordable housing for key workers. It became clear to the committee that it is impossible to segment one or two sectors of the community or the workforce and say that they are key workers. We need our police officers, nurses and teachers to live close to their places of work, but one cannot construct a strategy that identifies their accommodation and ignores the hairdressers, shop attendants, waiters, bar staff and the like. Indeed, in some cases they need to be close to their employment for similar reasons, such as the hours they work and their low rates of pay.

If we construct a strategy based on the big government approach of simply fixing part of the problem—for example, housing nurses close to hospitals—we will create a form of apartheid and ignore large parts of our workforce. If we proceed in that way the strategy will fail. During the inquiry the committee also learned that the fundamental issue is not just whether we can provide affordable housing but that we need to do so in order to give people the opportunity to access other services. Despite wishing to avoid being in any way political, I point out that this throws up the shortcomings of public transport, for instance, throughout Sydney, Wollongong, Newcastle or in so many other places—even Tamworth, as I am sure the Hon. Michael Veitch would agree.

The Hon. Robyn Parker: Maitland.

The Hon. TREVOR KHAN: The Hon. Robyn Parker mentions Maitland, where the Government's failure to provide adequate services, such as public transport, is well known. The Hon. Robyn Parker has made that point to me on numerous occasions. It is an issue close to her heart and is the subject of constant representations to her by Maitland residents. They have to go to the Hon. Robyn Parker for assistance instead of their absent local member. But I digress, and I must press on.

The Hon. Michael Veitch: Yes, please go on.

The Hon. Don Harwin: He has given up defending the indefensible and has reverted to being a prosecutor.

The Hon. TREVOR KHAN: I am still wondering how he will do that. A very interesting community housing model that is endorsed throughout the report is City West Housing. The evidence provided by representatives of that organisation was compelling not only because of the way in which the evidence was presented but also because of the very substance of the evidence. The City West Housing model demonstrates that a relatively small organisation that is focused on outcomes, particularly when that is coupled with a significant degree of humanity and technical expertise—

The Hon. Michael Veitch: In its governance.

The Hon. TREVOR KHAN: —in its governance, as the Hon. Michael Veitch says—is able to provide a standard of community housing that has not been provided previously by any other model, or has been provided by relatively few similar organisations in New South Wales. The City West Housing model provides a template for organisations that one hopes will emerge as a result of legislation so ably introduced yesterday by the Hon. Michael Veitch. I make the observation that the devolution of responsibility and management to a low level is regarded as a model for future projects. That point is made throughout the report. But at the very time the committee and the Government through its introduction of the bill have identified that as the way forward, public housing planning powers have been taken from local councils, resulting in considerable distortion of the type of accommodation that is being constructed throughout the city and the State. One has only to cite Maitland as an example of public housing that does not provide adequate parking or adequate floor space ratios anywhere close to what would be regarded as appropriate to appreciate that type of distortion. Considerable community disharmony has been created by adopting that approach.

Again, I make the point that I do not wish to be political, but it seems that the Government talks the talk, but is incapable of walking the walk. When the time comes for the Government to finally attempt to make a decision, all process disappears out the window and all capacity to deal with local communities evaporates. Instead we witness its adoption of a heavy-handed, clumsy and centralised approach. As the Hon. Robyn Parker has pointed out time and again, that leads to problems in local communities that so easily could be avoided by just a little bit of discussion and a little bit of listening. Indeed, the Hon. Robyn Parker demonstrates admirably the correct approach as she goes about her business of representing the people of Maitland.

In the short time that remains for my speech, I will move on to discuss two other important matters. The evidence the committee received demonstrated a vital need to examine the provision of accommodation in boarding houses. There was a diversity of opinion with regard to the way forward. However, I was impressed by the evidence given by representatives of the City of Sydney council, including Ms Clover Moore and her articulate explanation of the effects of the loss of boarding house accommodation in Sydney and the problems that has created with regard to homelessness. The matter plainly must be addressed in a compassionate and thoughtful way—if that is possible for the Government. Again, I make that observation without wishing to be political.

The second issue I will address is caravan parks, about which evidence was rather limited. One hopes that the Minister will take up the committee's recommendation that caravan parks become the subject of an inquiry. Caravan parks provide affordable housing and crisis accommodation. The loss of appropriate caravan park or mobile home accommodation can lead only to more homelessness in our society. Although it is not the best type of accommodation, it provides a roof over a person's head, which is better than that person sleeping in the park. Having made those apolitical remarks, I conclude my speech.

The Hon. MICHAEL VEITCH (Parliamentary Secretary) [3.15 p.m.]: In joining in discussion of report No. 42 of the Standing Committee on Social Issues, "Homelessness and Low-cost Rental Accommodation", I too will adopt an apolitical approach—which will be difficult as my contribution follows that made by the Hon. Trevor Khan. The committee's work on this report is the result of its having received 66 submissions from government, non-government and community organisations and individuals who are service providers involved in the provision of rental accommodation. The committee held six public hearings and heard evidence from 32 different organisations. The committee undertook one site visit to the City West Housing complex at Pyrmont. I will focus my remarks on that site visit which, of all the site visits I have undertaken during my short time in Parliament as a member of a number of committees, proved to be one of the most interesting visits I have undertaken. It was interesting not because we sat in a boardroom and spoke to management staff or directors of the organisation but because the tenants allowed us to inspect some of their units and become familiar with the standard of the accommodation in their complex. It was amazing to see the pride the tenants have in their accommodation. It is from that perspective that I suggest the City West Housing model is one that should be replicated. I know that the other committee members were equally as impressed as I was with the City West Housing model.

The other model examined by the committee is Common Ground, which has not been referred to in detail during previous contributions to this discussion but which is a very interesting model. A site visit was not possible, but Common Ground is a housing model that originated in New York. It provides permanent long-term supportive housing. The model particularly targets chronically homeless people as well as key workers, as defined so capably by the Hon. Trevor Khan during his address, and people who receive low incomes. It houses a mix of tenants across a range of ages, gender and marital statuses, such as single, de facto or otherwise. The strength of the model lies in the support services it provides. It is fair to say that the crucial component of Common Ground is its support services—something that is often missing in community housing complexes throughout the world.

In addition to housing stock, other services—support and wraparound services—also need to be provided. The Common Ground model includes the provision of a concierge to support vulnerable tenants who otherwise would not feel safe. An important factor in the provision of low-cost affordable housing is that the occupiers must feel safe and secure in the environment in which they live. It would appear from information the committee received relating to Common Ground that that is what this model provides. The Hon. Trevor Khan and the Hon. Ian West referred to caravan and residential parks. Language presents a problem because some people include residential parks in the term "caravan parks". For the sake of correct interpretation, I point out that the committee's report refers to caravan parks as encompassing residential parks. The committee states in recommendation No. 16 that the Minister for Fair Trading should conduct an inquiry to examine issues raised by the committee's report in relation to caravan and residential parks.

The committee was told that while caravan and residential parks may not be an ideal form of housing, many people who live in caravan and residential parks find it acceptable, with the caveat that in most cases it is not appropriate for crisis accommodation. The report states:

Mr Macfie, agreed that for some, caravan parks were a highly acceptable housing choice:

we should be respectful of the fact that a significant number of people do make their homes in residential parks, in caravan parks. Many of them regard it as home and they are very proud of their homes there.

Ms Cripps, also distinguished between those residents of caravan/residential parks who choose to locate there, and those who rely on caravan/residential parks for crisis accommodation:

There are two communities that we need to think about. There are people who choose to retire to caravan parks and they have their own fixed environment and that is their house, and lovely, good on them, then there are people who through being homeless end up being placed in caravan parks or seeking caravan parks as a short-term or temporary measure whilst their issues are sorted through and alternate accommodation is sourced.

People do reside in caravan parks; they purchase a mobile home or a residential cabin. However, the concern is that they could be caught in a poverty trap. The committee resolved that that is the crux of the issue and recommended a further inquiry to look into that concern. With good intentions, people buy a caravan or residential cabin and then find that the equity in their purchase depletes rapidly. Another issue is that they do not own the land upon which they reside. Caravan park owners can sell at any time without consulting park residents, and should this happen the park residents would lose their place of residence. That cannot be a good situation. Indeed, committee members were perplexed by that. Evidence that we heard from a number of caravan park tenants challenged our thought processes about the dollars and cents involved in calculating such equity based decisions.

This was an outstanding and challenging inquiry in which to be involved, and I congratulate the Hon. Ian West on his chairmanship of it. At times we heard extremely sad evidence, and it would probably be an understatement to suggest that some people were embarrassed about their situations. There were many difficult scenarios for us to work through. The Hon. Ian West prepared a constructive questioning routine and was able to draw the committee together for long enough to craft an excellent report. The committee members were extremely busy, and from time to time some of us were exercising our minds on other important matters. I extend my appreciation to Hansard and the committee secretariat for their assistance during the inquiry.

I acknowledge the ability of my fellow committee members, who heard many sad stories, to cut through many of the issues so that we could stick to the terms of reference. I trust I have not been too subtle in saying that. We tended to wander from the terms of reference during our questioning of witnesses at public hearings, and I was constantly amazed by the ability of the Hon. Ian West to bring us back to the point. On a number of occasions we were off on a tangent—on a line of questioning we should not have been. I concur with the statement in the report that it is absolutely necessary to provide a home, not a house. That people should live in a home resonates with me. A house must be a home, it must be safe and it must be secure. People must have an association with and attachment to the place in which they reside. I echo the words of Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, when he said, "It is everyone's responsibility to reduce homelessness."

The Hon. MARIE FICARRA [3.24 p.m.]: I begin by thanking our committee chair, the Hon. Ian West, my parliamentary colleagues and the committee secretariat of Rachel Simpson, Glenda Baker, Kate Harris and Lynn Race for their sustained professionalism, diligence and patience. This inquiry into homelessness and the provision of low-cost rental accommodation received sixty-six submissions, conducted seven public hearings and, as other honourable members have mentioned, undertook one most informative and heartening site visit to the inner-city model of affordable housing, City West Housing in Pyrmont. There we met with tenants and saw firsthand what can be accomplished when physical and social infrastructure is planned and managed well. Indeed, it is a place where tenants are able to create a home and participate in the local community. Learning from this model, we should aim for the creation of cohesive communities that will be sustainable in the long term.

It is acknowledged that while the Federal Government controls key policy and resource areas our State Government can do more to ensure that resources are better targeted with regard to local needs. Increased provision of socially and physically well-planned affordable housing is a key issue for our State's future growth. What is required is a change in approach to address the chronic problem of people in housing stress. Public housing stock continues to be at unacceptably low levels, with waiting lists, which include people with high needs, extending many years. The proportion of our community at risk of homelessness is steadily increasing due in part to high levels of rent in the private market that can be met only by people accessing suitable jobs. What is required is a coordinated response across Federal, State and local governments, as well as between government and non-government housing providers.

The not-for-profit sector is working well with limited resources, and it should be congratulated and encouraged by the Government providing improved policy and service coordination into the future. Investing in the not-for-profit sector so that it can better leverage funds to increase housing stock, over and above what the Government can provide, should be encouraged. That is why it is disappointing that barriers to this process were identified back in 2003, and there has been no progress in giving housing providers title for the properties they manage and no strategies have been developed that allow housing providers to better leverage funding for investments.

The Hon. Michael Veitch: We passed the Housing Amendment (Community Housing Providers) Bill yesterday.

The Hon. MARIE FICARRA: That is true; we are taking steps in that direction. That was long overdue, and thankfully we are coming to the point at which we can allow housing providers to better leverage funding for investments. A strong regulatory process would give more security to tenants, investors and government. All parties would stand to gain from the sustainable models that operate in Victoria and, to a larger extent, in the United Kingdom. Positive planning strategies will enable local solutions to be developed. The New South Wales Department of Planning needs to work closely with our regional organisations of councils and councils such as Liverpool City and the City of Sydney, which have shown a desire to increase sustainable stocks of affordable housing for their local communities.

We need to avoid the mistakes of the past where pockets of disadvantage and a lack of proper infrastructure and services have resulted in social disharmony. Affordable housing stock needs to be located close to employment, public transport, and educational facilities, and scattered throughout mixed income communities for social and economical long-term success. I believe the committee's recommendations are practical and overdue, starting with specific affordable housing targets as part of the New South Wales State Plan. Housing New South Wales, in collaboration with the not-for-profit sector, will be encouraged to conduct a mid-term review of the National Rental Affordability Scheme to ensure its effectiveness and sustainability. Housing New South Wales should commit to a firm time frame for the transfer of title to community housing providers.

Treasury, together with Housing New South Wales, should undertake a feasibility study into the introduction of a shared-equity scheme where the primary objective is to increase home ownership amongst lower income households capable of sustaining a modest mortgage. Suitable housing estates can be identified with the Department of Planning. Thus this shared equity initiative can assist in urban renewal to turn around areas of social disadvantage, together with Living Communities projects and the Building Stronger Communities strategy. We call on the Treasurer to make representations to his Federal counterpart for the retention of the public benevolent institutional status of not-for-profit providers and associated taxation concessions. Housing New South Wales needs to work with its interstate counterparts towards a national regulatory framework to achieve consistency between States in reducing red tape and increasing investment across borders, covering all forms of affordable housing, including boarding houses and caravan and residential parks.

This framework needs to include corporate governance for housing providers to be able to access tax benefits currently applied to public benevolent institutions with charitable status. This governance should include greater tenant participation. Initiatives such as inclusionary zoning have had a mixed reception from local government. Nevertheless, they should be investigated, along with common ground type developments by the Department of Planning, New South Wales Health and regional local government bodies, as a means of increasing housing stock with the necessary support structures.

Housing NSW should place greater emphasis upon social cohesion programs and provide greater flexibility with regard to the eligibility criteria for community housing, resulting in a broader social mix with target percentages for each income households—very low, low, and moderate. International experience has shown this mix to be sustainable in the long term with resultant development of stronger communities. With more and more boarding houses closing because of their redevelopment potential, and the negative effect this is having on tenants, the committee recommended that Housing NSW undertake a review of boarding houses to ascertain what, if any, financial incentives and assistance is required for owners to remain as providers into the future and to investigate ways of protecting the tenancy rights of boarders.

Furthermore, on the issue of caravan and residential parks, with redevelopment displacing many pensioners who are tenants and those who remain experiencing the hardship of rising site fees, the committee recommends that the Minister for Fair Trading refer a stand-alone inquiry into the appropriateness of the use of such stock as affordable housing so that all the complexities that the committee discovered can be properly examined. We commend our committee's report to the Government with the heartfelt desire that its recommendations be adopted to increase the level of affordable housing, so that more individuals and families in New South Wales can ultimately reside in dwellings that feel more like homes and can be part of a community that cares.

Ms SYLVIA HALE [3.32 p.m.]: I will briefly comment on some of the recommendations of the Standing Committee on Social Issues report entitled "Homelessness and Low-cost Rental Accommodation". I firstly congratulate the committee members and staff on their work and this report. With regard to recommendation 1, the Government should adopt affordable housing targets as part of its State Plan. It has, however, not done so despite the urgings of Professor Ed Blakely, one of the architects of the plan, and of many other people. The affordability situation in New South Wales is woeful.

The Greens recognise the efforts of the Commonwealth Government in terms of new spending on social housing and the National Rental Affordability Scheme, despite that scheme's imperfections. However, the effort must be maintained. Twenty thousand units of housing will not meet the needs of the 200,000 people who are on waiting lists nationally, nor will it meet the needs of the 750,000 households in this country that are currently experiencing housing stress. But I am sure that everyone would agree that after 13 years of neglect by the Coalition it is a start. Recommendation 4 states that Housing NSW should commit to a firm time frame to implement its policy for the transfer of title to community housing, and such a move is now coming to fruition.

Recommendation 11 concerns inclusionary zoning, but unfortunately that is still as far as from implementation as ever. Many councils would like to be able to levy for affordable housing purposes but every time this suggestion has been put to a succession of Planning Ministers over the past 15 years the result has been the same. We have only a handful of permitted schemes in New South Wales and one of them, the City West Scheme, was set up a very long time ago when Brian Howe was the Federal housing Minister. Since then nothing of real significance has taken place. The Property Council dislikes inclusionary zoning, and I think we need look no further for an explanation as to why recommendation 11 is unlikely to be implemented widely.

Recommendation 12 concerns the finding of a site for a common ground housing facility for homeless people. That is about to be implemented and a facility is to be built in Camperdown. It is unfortunate, however, that the needs and wishes of the residents of the adjoining Department of Housing block, the Joanna O'Dea Court, are being overlooked in the process. Recommendation 14 concerns programs promoting social cohesion for housing estate tenants. I believe much more work has to be put in before that recommendation can be implemented, but it is not an impossible situation. I note, for example, the work being done in Redfern-Waterloo in bringing Indigenous people into the workforce via apprenticeships in the building trades and training in catering and hospitality. We must engage more people in work or at least in meaningful activity. Why do we have people living in poverty on housing estates? Should we simply accept that as the way things are, or should we reconsider how we try to include people in society?

With regard to recommendation 16 the Greens are of the view that we need to give consideration to residential parks. Closures of parks and escalating site rents are hurting many people who have no alternative sources of accommodation. Such parks provide an important source of affordable housing and, equally, an important sense of community. I think anyone who has anything to do with residents of residential parks can testify to their great value in terms of social capital. The Greens have advocated for resident-run and resident-owned residential parks as an alternative to leaving park residents to the mercy of private operators who may decide to focus on the more lucrative manufactured home end of the market and thus ignore the needs of lower income earners. Recently I met residents of parks who spoke of their awareness of how the situation is deteriorating for many people.

Recommendation 17 refers to protecting the tenancy rights of boarders. The reality is that in New South Wales boarders have no rights to protect. The Minister for Fair Trading has indicated that this will not be part of the residential tenancies bill that is due to come before us this parliamentary session. Indeed, there is nothing in the draft exposure bill that changes the current position in any way. This is extraordinarily disappointing, given that boarders and lodgers do have some legislated rights in Victoria and in the Australian Capital Territory. Overall, and that having been said, we are seeing real improvements in the approach to housing and homelessness nationally and in this State. I acknowledge the commitment of the Prime Minister and the Federal housing Minister, and this State's Minister for Housing. The Greens believe that they are genuinely moving ahead to provide more new social and affordable housing and that this is long overdue after a period of extreme neglect. That said, I remind members that there are still 105,000 homeless people and 750,000 households in housing stress. We need to recognise housing as an essential need, rather than as a commodity. All people need, and are entitled to, a roof over their heads.

Dr JOHN KAYE [3.38 p.m.]: In contributing to the debate on the report on "Homelessness and low cost rental accommodation" produced by the Standing Committee on Social Issues I acknowledge the comments of my colleague Ms Sylvia Hale, who, over the past five or six years, has provided the Greens with both intellectual leadership and a great source of ideas on housing and homelessness. I also acknowledge the excellent work of her staff. The best I can do is echo some of her comments. All sides of politics are belatedly recognising that there are major problems with the housing market that simply will not solve themselves without some degree of intervention. Private rentals and private home ownership are straining to meet demand, with escalating costs and increasing numbers of households finding themselves in housing stress.

My colleagues on the committee have addressed the issue of key workers. Those who keep our economy and our society functioning are slowly being squeezed out of areas where they can find employment, and increasingly this is playing out as a transport problem. There is no question that conurbations such as Sydney are grinding to a halt, as more and more people need to travel greater distances to get from where they can afford to purchase a home, or even rent accommodation, to a place where they can find work. That not only is environmentally unsustainable and economically very expensive; it also puts enormous strain on families and households as people spend more and more of their lives caught in traffic jams.

The third and key ingredient of this issue is homelessness. The Australian Bureau of Statistics probably grossly underestimates, not with ill will but because of its data collection mechanism, that there are 27,000 homeless people in New South Wales—that is, about 42 in every 10,000 people do not have a home to sleep in tonight. In the city of Sydney that figure rises to as high as 133 people in every 10,000. It is a sign of progress in Australian politics that the debate about homelessness, on all sides of politics—and I acknowledge the role that Prime Minister Kevin Rudd played in advancing his cause—has become more sophisticated and more concerned with the individual plights of each homeless person. It is heartening that society has reached a level of maturity and self-awareness that has commonly accepted that homelessness is unacceptable and must be resolved.

However, there is another side to this, and that relates to the marginally housed. And I do mean just those who live in caravan parks and boarding houses with a high degree of insecurity as the underlying capital value of where they live rises and there is more development pressure on their homes, but I refer also to those in rental accommodation who experience extreme rental stress and wonder how they will be able to pay their rent tomorrow. In all sectors it is always the most marginal within society who suffer. Amongst homeless people and those who are in marginal housing, indigenous Australians are appallingly overrepresented. Also there is a gross overrepresentation of people with mental health issues and drug dependency issues, and commonly both. The problems confronting those who would address the issues of housing and homelessness are many and cover a broad spectrum. They involve not only the provision of physical housing and services but also how to deal with issues associated with people who no longer fit into an increasingly complex and competitive society.

Underlying all of this is the change in the role of public housing. Decades ago public housing was a major player in the market, catering for the needs of blue-collar workers. It has now become a residualised service for the most disadvantaged; many are extremely disadvantaged and cannot access public housing units. Part of that results from a massive reduction in public investment in proportion to both the gross domestic product and population. It has resulted in a proportionate reduction in the number of units available in public housing. The inquiry looked at a number of solutions, but one it did not entertain was the large-scale reinvestment of capital into public housing and a reinvention of the mission of public housing to serve the people for whom it provides homes.

It seems not to be in fashion nowadays to talk about public sector solutions to housing. I suspect that is largely based on ideology and on the electoral attractiveness of tax cutting. In this context tax cutting is purchasing the loyalty of middle-class swinging voters at the expense of some of society's most marginal individuals. The role of public provision seems to have been entirely dismissed. The focus on the committee's inquiry was largely on social housing. The not-for-profit sector has done a remarkable and high-quality job in filling the void left by the desertion of the public housing sector, and it has done an excellent job in particular levering capital on ownership of units to expand and to grow. Probably that job could also be done by the public sector if a more imaginative management structure were developed in public housing.

Social housing has been the focus of a large amount of Commonwealth cash and therefore it becomes important, as the committee recognised, to look carefully at the way in which the social housing sector is regulated. The committee looked at two specific issues, the first of which was providing governance. I pay credit to the Hon. Michael Veitch, who asked very insightful questions about governance, which informed much of the committee's thinking about the importance of governance in social housing to ensure that money is spent not only effectively but also with probity.

Another issue of particular importance in the view of the Greens is the creation of opportunities for tenants to be leading voices in decision-making in social housing. The committee heard hard, cold evidence of the United Kingdom experience, where such opportunities are created. Better decision-making is achieved when those who make the decisions are informed by those who are the direct recipients of the services provided. Also, informed decision-making improves the sense of ownership and engagement by those who live in social housing. The committee looked also at inclusionary zoning and recommended a study be conducted by the Department of Planning in conjunction with the regional organisations of councils. I suggest that that is probably unnecessary, given that the international experience already shows that using levies on new developments to provide cash for affordable housing is a highly effective way of maintaining a quality social mix within all areas.

In New South Wales we have the example at Pyrmont-Ultimo by City West Housing Pty Limited. It is not only very well run; it also receives large volumes of cash from levies on developments in the Pyrmont-Ultimo area. A couple of years ago my colleague Ms Sylvia Hale introduced a bill to achieve exactly this outcome: a comprehensive regime of inclusionary zoning in New South Wales. Of course, it was voted down with great enthusiasm by all sides of politics other than the Greens. It is good to know that the issue of inclusionary zoning, a very important mechanism—

The Hon. Trevor Khan: No doubt it was her normal superficial nonsense.

Dr JOHN KAYE: I acknowledge the interjection by Mr Trevor Khan that "No doubt it was then superficial nonsense".

The Hon. Trevor Khan: No, I said, "No doubt it was her normal superficial nonsense."

Dr JOHN KAYE: The member is now recognising that inclusionary zoning is an important issue that is back on the agenda, and that that is a positive thing. I, too, am trying not to be too political. The committee considered the issue of common ground. I support the recommendation of the committee to explore common ground. I too acknowledge the excellent work of the committee chair, Mr Ian West, who conducted the inquiry with an enormous degree of dignity, integrity and compassion for those from whom the committee heard evidence. He kept us on the straight and narrow; a very difficult task, given some of the members of the committee, including myself. I acknowledge the inventiveness, the humour and the hard work of the other members of the committee.

I conclude by thanking the secretariat: Rachel Simpson, Glenda Baker, Kate Harris and Lynn Race, who did a marvellous job bringing this altogether and producing a report that I am proud to have my name on. I thank also Hansard, who do a remarkable job invisibly, behind the scenes. I am proud to have been associated with the production of this report.

The Hon. GREG PEARCE [3.48 p.m.]: As shadow Minister for Housing Strategy, I record my gratitude to the committee for its excellent report on this matter, which is very important to all members of Parliament. The bipartisan way in which the members and crossbenchers who participated in this inquiry went about their work, elicited information and produced the report is commendable. It is one of those occasions on which all members feel they are making a real contribution to improving people's lives. The report has been extraordinarily valuable in providing background material for me in my role as a shadow Minister. I am currently considering many of its recommendations with my advisory group as we develop the Coalition's policy on housing strategy.

I do not want to take up the time of the House by repeating either the contents of the report or many of the things that others have said in speaking on the report today. I found it extraordinarily valuable. It is a compliment to all of the committee members; I will not single them out because they have all done a great job on this report. I have found it of great use to me in my role as shadow Minister.

The Hon. GREG DONNELLY [3.50 p.m.]: I wish to make a modest contribution to the debate. I am proud to participate as I was a member of the committee and I concur with the comments of the Hon. Greg Pearce about the way in which committee members, under the stewardship of the Hon. Ian West, dealt with this very important matter of Government social policy. I also do not wish to go through the report in detail. Members have commented on various aspects and I do not wish to repeat their thoughts and reflections. I encourage any member of this House or of the other place, and indeed people outside the Parliament who have a genuine and serious interest in the issue of social housing, to have a good look at this report. It brings together a range of issues that I think are cause for deep reflection and, hopefully, ultimately policy that will improve the lot of people in this State who need support with respect to their accommodation.

I would like to comment on a couple of areas in the report. Pages 13 and 14 deal with "Causes of homelessness" and I value greatly the evidence and material provided by the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare and other witnesses who submitted material to the inquiry. They have informed me about an area that I was not really aware of. I refer to the range of interconnected and related issues that bring about the scenario where many people in the community, not just in this State but also in other States and Territories around the Commonwealth, find themselves needing support with respect to their accommodation.

I want to comment briefly on the causes of homelessness and I do so not because I have any pearls of wisdom that will ultimately deal with these problems. I know that over many decades members of Parliament at State and Commonwealth levels as well as people in local government and others have been thinking about housing and wondering how it can be addressed. The first aspect is the breakdown of families and relationships and its impact on housing. There is obviously no one simple answer that will explain how a family relationship that is under stress can find the strength to remain a cohesive whole and continue to operate as a family unit. We are all aware that family breakdown is an issue, perhaps through being touched by it in our own lives or through its impact on extended family or people we deal with in the community.

I have watched with some interest over the last year or two the effect of amendments to the Commonwealth Family Law Act particularly with respect to trying to bring about a greater capacity to mediate differences between couples who are experiencing tensions in their relationships. It is early days, but I understand a report was produced late last year that assessed the major changes in the Commonwealth legislation some two or three years ago. We have a lot to learn as a community and society. As people who have the privilege of serving in Parliament and ultimately work on policy development and pass laws, we must see how we can if at all possible generate ways and means of providing assistance to people who find themselves, for a range of reasons, under tension that can ultimately lead to the collapse of the family unit. That breakdown comes at a great personal cost and if there are children of the relationship it can lead to additional angst.

Another aspect that disturbed me greatly is picked up at point 2.30 in the report. It was not a point that I appreciated to the extent that it is laid out in the report. It relates to the extent to which domestic violence contributes to homelessness in Australia. I think I had a general awareness that domestic violence in a sense obviously contributed to the homelessness of women. They and their children are often fleeing a relationship that involves violence towards the women and perhaps the children. I have to say I find it profoundly disturbing that notwithstanding that we have come some distance as a society in elevating our discourse about our repugnance of domestic violence—let us be frank; in the main it is orchestrated by males against women in domestic relationships—we have such a long way to go. Once again I am not proffering any great insights into how we can resolve this, but things such as White Ribbon Day are very important.

Somehow we have to consider educating young boys and young men through school. How do we engage them, talk to them and get them to accept that domestic violence is not acceptable, full stop? I am cautious about that because Dr John Kaye, who often speaks on education matters with a lot of insight, makes the point that we are increasingly loading onto teachers extra responsibilities in different areas. We just keep loading responsibility onto them. I am not saying we should load on another area in the Personal Development, Health and Physical Education curriculum. Clearly, young boys will go through kindergarten and primary school and many will finish five or six years of high school. There have to be opportunities in the context of education, whether public or private, including the independent and Catholic system schools, to educate young boys and young men to understand that domestic violence is not acceptable. It is important that we make it very clear that it is not just physical violence but also psychological violence. We all know of the terrible instances of physical violence and how that manifests itself in beatings, bruises and broken bones. I do not claim to be an expert in this area at all. I know the Hon. Robyn Parker and others in this House do good work in this area—

The Hon. Trevor Khan: And in Maitland.

The Hon. GREG DONNELLY: Around the State. They have alerted me to the significance of the psychological damage that is done. Young boys and young men need to understand that this is not just about knocking around a girlfriend, de facto or wife; great damage can be done psychologically. I wanted to put those points on the record.

In the remaining time I want to make a couple of comments about the part of the report that deals with caravan and residential parks, which can be found on pages 103 to 107. I concur with some of the contributions made by other members. There are a number of issues in this report that need to be properly addressed through a legislative framework to protect individuals who find themselves in these circumstances, whether by choice or otherwise. I have discovered that some people are quite happy to live in these sorts of arrangements. They might have a mobile home that they park on a site and reside there at certain times of the year and at other times they will head north and chase the warmer weather.

It could be a manufactured home site or even a caravan park. I discovered that after talking to people who live in these sorts of situations that are not underpinned by any real rights that are binding and with which they feel comfortable. There is doubt and uncertainty as to whether they will be told to move on, whether the piece of land will be sold off and whether they will be required to find other accommodation. I concur with the comments that were made earlier. Whilst in some sense we have flipped over the rock and found a few issues in this area, a lot more work needs to be done with caravan and residential parks. Over time proper legislation should be enacted to protect the rights of those who are living in these situations.

The Hon. IAN WEST [3.58 p.m.], in reply: I thank all those members who contributed to this take-note debate for their kind words—Deputy Chair the Hon. Trevor Khan, the Hon. Greg Donnelly, the Hon. Marie Ficarra, Dr John Kaye, Parliamentary Secretary the Hon. Mick Veitch, Ms Sylvia Hale and the Hon. Greg Pearce, the Opposition housing spokesperson. I greatly appreciated the comments of the Hon. Greg Pearce, which made me feel as though the work of the committee was worthwhile. I again thank the secretariat—Rachel Simpson, Director; Glenda Baker, Senior Council Officer; Kate Harris, Council Officer; and Lynn Race, Assistant Council Officer—for their extremely good work and guidance in this inquiry. Whilst I appreciate that committee secretariats do not form part of the committee, in the sense that they do not put their names to the report as such, their support is essential.

Pursuant to standing orders business interrupted and set down as an order of the day for a future day.

Pursuant to sessional orders debate on budget estimates proceeded with.