1. Home
  2. Hansard & Papers
  3. Legislative Assembly
  4. 2 May 2006
Contact Print this page Reduce font size Increase font size

Public Housing for Seniors

Printing Tips | Print selected text | Full Day Hansard Transcript         « Prior Item | Item 26 of 52 | Next Item »

About this Item
Subjects -  Aged; Handicapped and Disabled; Planning and Development; Public Housing
Speakers - Burton Ms Cherie; Aplin Mr Greg; Andrews Ms Marie
Business - Matter of Public Importance


    PUBLIC HOUSING FOR SENIORS
Page: 22387


    Matter of Public Importance

    Miss CHERIE BURTON (Kogarah—Minister for Housing, and Minister Assisting the Minister for Health (Mental Health)) [4.42 p.m.]: The Government is taking social housing in a new direction in New South Wales. We started with the delivery of the reshaping public housing reforms, which refocus our priorities to deliver housing to those most in need while they are in need—people suffering from a mental illness, people with a disability, young homeless people and, of course, the elderly. In line with this, on Sunday I was pleased to visit the home of Elizabeth Cartwright in Ultimo with the Premier. We were there to announce the first phase of the Premier's affordable housing plan, $420 million over the next five years for more housing dedicated to our seniors. This will see seniors housing increase by 10 per cent to 30,000 homes. Under our plan we will build or buy 2,800 additional homes for seniors.

    The Government will spend $75 million to make sure our homes meet the needs of older people. We know they want to feel independent and secure, which is why this $75 million investment is so important. It will help our elderly tenants to stay in their own homes for longer, and that is what is important for our seniors. Instead of ending up in hospital or in a nursing home, they will have the ability to stay in their homes for longer. The Iemma Government is providing that support. Lifts, handrails on walkways, and improvements to bathrooms and kitchens will help older people to maintain their independence. At the same time as we are building new homes for seniors, we are planning to help them build communities. We want seniors to be housed appropriately and with other seniors.

    The Government is taking a new direction, setting up designated seniors precincts in all major redevelopments, and housing older people only with older people. We want to encourage older people to become leaders in their community. We want to ensure that our elderly people are housed together and looking out for each other. We want to ensure that they are getting the services they need to keep them well and active in the community. We want them to become leaders in the community so they can make it the type of community in which they want to live. We want to ensure that our seniors are not being told what to do, but that they continue to be contributing members of the community for many years to come.

    I know from experience in my electorate that this system works. For example, I refer to May Harris, who lives in a seniors complex in Bexley North. Honourable members may remember reading about May in an article that appeared in the Sunday Telegraph. May is 81 years old. Since her move to the Shaw Street complex, her life is only getting better. To quote May, "I love it. It is very peaceful and the neighbours are very friendly." After my election as member for Kogarah I visited that complex and spoke to one lady who said to me:

    I used to live in a three-bedroom house, where I brought up my children. I was very scared about moving into this complex but it was the best thing that ever happened. My health has improved. We have bingo on Monday nights. I get days out with the Kogarah senior citizens. Everyone looks out for me. We have barbecues on Saturday, play cards on Wednesday afternoon and fight over whose turn it is to do a bit of gardening.

    She loves living there. She said she has never been in better health, her enjoyment of life has never been better and she has never felt safer. The out-of-touch Leader of the Opposition is putting May and all of her friends at risk. He does not want to give elderly people the security of living in a house that is owned by taxpayers. Instead, he wants to lease properties. Well, most people would agree that it is much better to own than to rent. Leasing would be a great cost burden to the taxpayer and a greater cost to the elderly people of New South Wales. Over five years it would cost an extra $31.5 million to lease the same number of properties that the Iemma Government will buy. The greatest risk to the New South Wales economy is the Leader of the Opposition—Peter Debtnam, as we like to refer to him.

    Our commitment is funded and paid for. I ask the Leader of the Opposition how he will pay the extra $31.5 million. That is just a starting figure. Honourable members will have noted his off-the-cuff comment on television the other day. The Leader of the Opposition was lost for words. He knows that the direction the Iemma Government is taking is the right direction so he came up with this hare-brained scheme to lease property, as opposed to buy property and give people security of tenure. How can the Leader of the Opposition justify this added cost to the people of New South Wales with absolutely nothing to show for it at the end?

    The security of knowing that New South Wales taxpayers own their homes is invaluable for our elderly citizens. Taxpayers will have a value-added asset and we will spend less to provide it than the Leader of the Opposition has proposed. Honourable members know, because we have seen it time and again, that the Opposition is a policy vacuum. When the Premier and I made the announcement on Sunday it was obvious that the Leader of the Opposition did not know what to say. His eyes were practically rolling to the back of his head. Instead of doing the right thing, the honourable thing, and welcoming this new direction by the Iemma Government, this massive investment in providing homes for one of their most vulnerable groups in the community, the Leader of the Opposition came up with a very expensive and dangerous idea. It was obvious that he made it up as he went along.

    The Leader of the Opposition put no thought into it. The suggestion that it would be preferable to lease properties is a dangerous proposition for a number of reasons. The Government buys housing stock to provide security for people as they move in and out of public housing. Public housing is a hand-up for the future, not a hand-out for life. It is important that we provide stability and security for our elderly tenants and for our other tenants by ensuring that we can always provide the housing stock that is needed. Ownership of that stock gives the State assets and an ability to ensure security of tenure to people who are in need. We can provide housing when they are in need for the time that they are in need.

    All members of Parliament know that older people want safety, affordable housing and the security of knowing that the Government owns the house in which they live. The Government's new direction in providing social housing for older people will meet all those needs, but without the additional cost that the Leader of the Opposition would impose on the New South Wales taxpayers. The Iemma Government respects the contribution that our seniors have made to the community, and will continue to provide the support and housing they need. The first phase of the Iemma Government's affordable housing strategy will go a long way toward providing support and facilities.

    I conclude with a tribute to the seniors of our community for the contribution that they make to our society—that they have made and continue to make. The Iemma Government wants to ensure that they receive the support they need, that they are housed together, that, for health and social reasons, they support each other, and that they are living in safety. The Iemma Government wants to ensure that elderly people live together so that they can keep an eye on each other. The functioning of precincts has been successful and the Government's recent announcement has been widely welcomed. Labor members have been inundated with extremely happy people contacting their offices and making favourable comments about the new direction that the Iemma Government has taken to ensure that one of the fastest-increasing sectors of the population—the elderly people of our community—receives support.

    The precincts will make it easier for support services to provide community aged care and in-home care. For example, in my electorate it will be much easier for Nurses on Wheels Inc. to provide support for senior citizens who live in the same precinct. Kogarah senior citizens visit the precincts and organise days out. When I attend the quarterly tenant group meetings at the seniors precincts the residents have plenty to say. They actively ensure that maintenance is kept up to date and that all is well in their little corner of the world. The elderly people in our community know that they are supported by the Iemma Government. The first phase of the Iemma Government's affordable housing strategy will maintain support and safety for the elderly citizens of New South Wales.

    Mr GREG APLIN (Albury) [4.52 p.m.]: I am pleased to have the opportunity to address this matter of public importance. The Coalition shares the view that social housing for the elderly is a critical issue because all forecasts indicate that there will be a substantial increase in the percentage of senior citizens in New South Wales. A recent study conducted by the New South Wales Local Government and Shires Associations predicted that the number of people aged over 85 living in Sydney will rise from 69,520 this year to 113,351 by 2022. Of the anticipated 4.9 million residents living in Sydney, those aged over 65 are expected to make up 17 per cent of the population, whereas in 2004 that age group made up only 12 per cent of Sydney residents.

    For 11 years this Labor Government has failed to recognise that senior citizens have a growing need for public housing. The many others who wait with their names on public housing lists—for periods in excess of 14 years in some cases—have similarly not been recognised. The failure of this Government is palpable. No matter where one walks in the city or regional areas, there are desperate people, often in dire circumstances, who are waiting for public housing. It is most significant that in an announcement made over the weekend regional areas were almost completely overlooked by the concentration on the Sydney and the Central Coast, with the Tweed district included as the token regional coastal area. Once again, as has been the case over the past 11 years of the Carr and Iemma governments, regional areas have failed to register on this Government's radar. Labor has squandered massive stamp duty and other unprecedented incomes to the State and has not even had public housing tenants on its radar.

    The issue of people getting onto public housing lists is difficult enough in itself. single people who are unemployed, have no children or medical ailments have no chance. Sadly, single people who have serious medical ailments or disability also find it almost impossible to get assistance. Mothers or fathers and children, even if they fall within the economic guidelines and may have other complicating circumstances such as medical issues or disabilities, still have to scramble in most areas to get on the priority housing list. The list was developed some years ago to reflect the fact that many applicants are in dire circumstances and should be given priority, but in this sense it has become the list that one has to be on—or risk the serious possibility of never getting public housing. For 11 years the Labor Government has not lifted public housing standards: in fact, the standards have deteriorated.

    Any member of this Parliament who has public housing areas in his or her electorate would know that for years the Labor Government has dumped people who have mental illness and/or disabilities into public housing blocks of units or townhouses that previously were occupied by senior citizens in the Liberal-Nationals terms of government. Many members of Parliament have faced agonised senior tenants who decry the Labor Government's policy of dumping people who have mental illness and people who have disabilities into public housing without giving the support that is necessary to ensure that these people have quality of life. At the same time, the failure to co-ordinate services for such people has meant that many senior citizens have felt as though they are under siege.

    The Labor Government's failure to address support services is seen at some housing estates such as Villawood and Macquarie Fields in riots that have utterly destroyed the self-confidence of all residents, including the seniors who often feel most vulnerable. Labor's weekend announcement that there would be a new focus on seniors and housing is welcome, but at the same time it is concerning. We were told that there will be $420 million, but we were not told where it was coming from. Is it new money? Is it money that is being shifted? Is it the usual re-announcement? Or was it Commonwealth money? An examination of the current five-year Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement shows that it is funded in the proportions of $1.5 billion of Commonwealth money compared to $597 million of State money. In 2005-06 the Commonwealth contributed $297.2 million compared to $119.1 million in State funding.

    Next year the funding arrangement will change, with the Commonwealth Government contributing $301 million compared to $120 million from the State. As an initial matter, the Coalition notes that Labor failed to declare that this was not new money: indeed, it was not in the budget, perhaps. It appears to have been shifted away from other areas of need. How can a Government tell people who have already waited between 10 and 14 years that they will be waiting longer because it has decided to shift the focus to just one area—support for seniors? Seniors and each of the other vulnerable sectors of people in our community deserve a fair go, and a fair go means that we cannot repeat the mistakes of the past. Even this Government has recognised that enclaves of public housing tenants—or, for that matter, any other group—is not helpful. The Coalition is absolutely committed to ensuring that as far as practicable new housing will not be in estates unless there is a tangible advantage, such as sharing of services provided for people with particular needs.

    However, there should not be the assumption that every older person wants to be in a de facto public housing retirement complex_hence the announcement on the weekend by the Leader of the Opposition that the Coalition would engage more of the private sector in long-term leases. If a senior citizen wants to live surrounded by the mix of our society rather than in a particular uniform environment, such as one for seniors only, such options should be available. Clearly, tying up capital in new complexes that may go the way of Villawood and Macquarie Fields is not necessarily a sensible option. Flexibility for seniors housing is critical. It may be offered through community housing, private housing, long-term leases or, in some circumstances, private housing through short-term leases—for example, for seniors who anticipate needing medical assistance at a local hospital over a year or two but who want long-term security at an alternative location near to family.

    We talk about security, so let us look at the record of the Department of Housing and this Government. Let us look particularly at the area of Stockton in the Newcastle electorate. Let us re-examine the issue of two people living in Department of Housing units: a lady in her sixties who is still grieving over the sudden death of her husband just four months ago, and a gentleman in his seventies who has a heart condition and has been living in his house—it is a Department of Housing house—for the past 19 years. These people will be removed from their houses. So much for the security of living in your own house under this Government! They are currently surrounded by family, neighbours and friends, and they belong to the area. They are supported by a close community. They volunteer much of their time to community projects, only to be treated like disposable objects by the Department of Housing. This is morally and ethically wrong. They are being moved because 11 Department of Housing units are to be constructed; two-storey units, supposedly for seniors and a mix of people. That is what is behind the current plan.

    However, the Department of Housing cannot maintain the existing houses in the area. In the immediate area surrounding Stone and Dunbar streets there are some 44 empty and disused houses, which are obviously not occupied or are in some state of disrepair. So much for the maintenance issues, so much for this new plan. The proposed development on Dunbar and Stone streets is 50 metres from the beach and in a very high-maintenance area. At a recent public meeting the action group asked the Department of Housing representatives why the seniors houses were to be built in that particular area. The answer given was "people like to live here". When asked why two-storey units were being built for seniors and people with a disability because the steps may become a problem, the answer was "they could just live downstairs". So much for the thought behind this new process that was announced on the weekend. So much for thinking about the needs of seniors.

    That location is two kilometres from the shopping centre, two kilometres from the library, two kilometres from the post offices and newsagents, two kilometres from a general practitioner, two kilometres from banks, two kilometres from the chemist and two kilometres from the supermarket. What about transport? Yes, there is a bus service, but it does not have wheelchair access. It is two kilometres to the one pedestrian crossing in Stockton, and there are no traffic lights in Stockton. The footpaths are narrow and many are in bad condition. Is that suitable for seniors? However, that is the plan under the Iemma Government. There are no rest stops, sheltered bus seats or footpaths on the western side of Mitchell Street. There are eight cross streets between Stone Street and Crown Street and a children's day-care centre is some 60 metres away with 245 children attending each week. That is great, but for seniors possibly not the ideal setting.

    Regarding essential services, there are no after-hours doctors, no dentist, no physiotherapist and no occupational therapist. This is behind the so-called thinking, consultation, new plan of the Iemma Government. The people of Stockton are not alone in calling for consultation. The Macarthur Housing Coalition gathered for a public meeting and asked for support in reversing the "Reshaping Public Housing" agenda and encouraged the Government to do what it has not done before: to consult the people most affected. That call comes from people in Lightning Ridge, who again asked for consultation. Labor has failed in its 11 years in office. It certainly does not deserve another term in office. [Time expired.]

    Ms MARIE ANDREWS (Peats) [5.02 p.m.]: As the representative of the Peats electorate, which has more than the State's average of persons aged 60 and over, I welcome the Iemma Government's new direction for delivery of public housing for senior citizens in New South Wales. The announcement of a five-year $420 million plan to boost affordable seniors housing means that those people most in need will now have access to secure and suitable housing. Currently 60,000 people over 60 live in public housing in New South Wales. It is expected that that number will increase by about 36 per cent over the next decade. In addition, it is estimated that about 14 per cent of the homeless population in New South Wales is aged 55 years or older.

    The number of people aged over 60 living on the Central Coast who will need to access social housing is expected to grow by 39 per cent by 2011. The plan announced by the Premier last week will include 111 new homes specifically for seniors residing on the Central Coast by June 2007—an investment of $27.12 million. This means that on the Central Coast and across New South Wales we will be better able to meet the growing demand for housing for seniors, supporting the elderly in our community to live in stable and safe housing. The Iemma Government's "New Directions in Social Housing for Older People" policy will also make it easier for seniors to stay longer in their own homes. A further $75 million will be invested in modifying existing homes to ensure they are suitable for senior residents. The Iemma Government will invest in facilities such as hobless showers, grab rails, lever taps and enlarged light switches, all of which will make life a little easier for those residents. Seniors value their home and the stability that public housing offers.

    Staying in a familiar environment, with their friends and their usual services nearby, is important for senior residents—and this Government's plan makes that possible. Only 3 per cent of older people currently live in retirement village type accommodation and 6 per cent currently live in residential aged care. The Iemma Government's new plan offers elderly people more choice about where they live. It offers them an affordable form of accommodation and one that offers independence to residents, especially those who do not want to move to residential aged care homes. Under the Howard Government the Commonwealth has progressively withdrawn its support from public housing. It continues to walk away from public housing and in total has cut $850 million out of the New South Wales public housing system between 1996 and 2005.

    More than 3,800 potential new homes have been ripped out of the system. I call on the Leader of the Opposition to take a stand and to tell his mates in Canberra to put this money where it is needed. This massive investment in seniors housing is the first phase of the Iemma Government's affordable housing plan which will continue to ensure that those most in need get access to housing in New South Wales. I congratulate the Premier and the Minister for Housing on listening to the seniors in our midst, who have contributed and continue to contribute to the wellbeing of our society and, more importantly, for catering to their housing needs.

    Miss CHERIE BURTON (Kogarah—Minister for Housing, and Minister Assisting the Minister for Health (Mental Health)) [5.06 p.m.], in reply: I thank the honourable member for Peats for her contribution to the debate and for her continued support of elderly people in her electorate and across New South Wales. I will address a few matters raised by the Opposition. I acknowledge that the shadow Minister for Housing is new to that position. The Government has offered to hold briefings at any time and I am happy to bring him up to speed on what is happening in Housing. It is about time that the Opposition got behind the plan and supported the elderly. It is no use bagging this plan, because he knows it is a good policy. It has been welcomed by the community and particularly the elderly.

    Furthermore, if the Opposition were serious about supporting public housing they should get up and pay it lip service; they have all the rhetoric at hand. I would like the Coalition to go to Canberra and get the $850 million that I am owed by the Federal Government and put that money into public housing, where it should be. I would like the Coalition to support the State Government so that we can provide even more homes. With $850 million we could develop many facilities to support our elderly, but those opposite want a lease. Let us get serious about this; what a joke it would be to lease properties. It would be a recurrent budget nightmare. The Leader of the Opposition, as I said, is Peter Debtnam. God help us if the ever got his hands on the State.

    Concerning regional areas, the focus is across New South Wales where the demand is. The Department of Housing does not see any point in building homes were there is no demand. And where there is demand, the Government will build homes, and that is what this strategy is all about. That is what "Reshaping Public Housing" is about: it is about providing stock where it is needed, when it is needed and for the length of time that it is needed. It is important to reprioritise, and if the shadow Minister had done his homework he would know that in the 1970s 70 per cent of housing applicants were young families. Now it is 11 per cent, with the overwhelming majority of applicants being the elderly, people with a disability, people suffering from a mental illness, the young homeless, and single parent families. They are the Government's target groups in the "Reshaping Public Housing" reforms.

    This is about providing housing to those most in need for the time that they are in need. In addition, this is about making sure that we are providing security so that when people are in a period of crisis that they can get access to housing. In addition, we will make sure that our elderly can get security of tenure. If an 80-year-old leases a property and the landlord decides to sell it, that would be very distressing. This is Opposition policy on the run, because it has no ideas. It is a bit rich for the Opposition to espouse about people who need public housing when the Federal Government has been ripping the guts out of the Housing budget since 1995.

    This Government has kept up with the demand for public housing. It is committed to providing housing where and when it is needed. I am happy to inform Opposition members that this Government has made available 240 new properties outside Sydney, which I am sure will please the shadow Minister who has not done his homework. The door is always open to him to visit my office, to obtain the proper statistics and to receive a proper briefing, which will ensure he understands how public housing works in New South Wales. I do not believe in politicising these sorts of issues.

    This issue is about ensuring that people who are in need receive public housing. Back in the 1970s, when my family was in need, it was able to obtain public housing. We had a roof over our heads and food on the table, and we were able to go to school. The Government's policy is not only about rearranging the way it delivers public housing; it is also about accelerating the delivery of public housing. This Government will meet the demand for housing faster. My message to Opposition members is to get their Federal mates to give this Government the $850 million that is owed to it so it can provide better public housing for the people of New South Wales.

    Discussion concluded.


Last modified 31/03/2009 15:51:02   :   Update this page