Mr GAFFNEY (Mersey) - Mr President, I value the contribution from other members - it helps us to think about all the different aspects of it. I rise to give my thoughts on the Homes Tasmania Bill, legislation that has seen a rapid gestation of barely two months from the close of its public consultation period on the initial draft, its subsequent passage to the other place less than two weeks ago, and now ready to greet us here in a newly minted form. If it is passes unscathed it will complete its race to independent and fully functional adulthood by the end of the month; an extremely rapid process for such an important issue.

We can only hope the issues it seeks to address can be resolved with an equal turn of energy and enthusiasm. It is not to say that its intent is without merit. We have seen an almost united front from all sides of politics, acknowledging we have a huge problem with the availability - or lack of it - or affordability of housing for an increasing number of our fellow Tasmanians. I thank the Leader for the briefings from the department and the outside stakeholders who have allowed us to openly explore the intent and concerns surrounding this bill. I also thank the contributors to the community consultation process for their considered submissions, who have given us all a deeper perspective on a highly complex issue.

The numbers are well known and increasing, with reports of 4500 families on the housing waitlist. There is now getting close to a 70-week delay for priority applicants alone. I can only imagine how impossible it is for these families to maintain the hope of finding a place that they can call home, let alone the bureaucratic process to prove eligibility. I agree with the member for Franklin from the other place with his comments that:

This is a wicked problem, a problem with no stopping rule, where every attempt at solving it cannot be withdrawn and may well exacerbate the issue. The problem is a symptom of another problem and there are no right or wrong answers, only better or worse outcomes.

I am not sure I necessarily agree with his desire to have greater political control over the solution. Maybe that has been part of the problem with imposed political influence and party policy. Can Homes Tasmania facilitate this? Perhaps so; however, an independent board with an empowered CEO might be just what is needed to create a separation from overt political control while still being publicly accountable. The goal of building and acquiring 10 000 new homes is an ambitious target. Maybe this model could allow it to be achieved.

However, going back to the member for Franklin's comments, as he has raised strong concerns that have been echoed by many in the debate, I draw members' attention to this extract from the letter he sent to us all:

Further, I fear that the bureaucratic restructure that will come from this bill will divert attention and resources away from the housing crisis at the worst possible time, with vulnerable Tasmanians suffering as a result.

I have to ask what plans the Government may have to prevent this from happening if this bill passes, as it may well be one of the largest elephants in the room at this point. To reflect on this query for a moment, the key mechanism in starting to understand the nature of a wicked problem is to ask enough informed questions that might help to reveal the true nature of the issue, and then to consider whether any attempt at remedy will produce a better or worse outcome; because once a remedy itself is tried, it cannot be taken back. There is no restore point in this process.

The member for Franklin raised a number of these points, and I hope they can be addressed in a considered manner rather than swept aside in the haste to establish a new entity, as community and industry confidence in a new entity is a critical factor.

Given the nature of public debate on this issue, much of it quite heated, we have seen lots of ideas put up and some of them acted upon. One of the most recent here has been the speculation on the availability of longer term rentals, with a surge in short stay tourist accommodation offerings based in private houses. This has been seen as a particularly demonic influence by some commentators, with property owners naturally attracted to the apparently much higher returns and flexibility offered by such schemes.

Hobart City Council has reacted by moving to limit new whole house approvals for such enterprises, to stem the loss of long-term rental properties. Whether it will make much difference is yet to be seen. Maybe being seen to do something will send its own signal to the Hobart community and perhaps to other municipalities as well.

Madam Deputy President, we have also had to include deeply underlying issues. To address one of these, Dr Lisa Denny, a well-respected demographer and a commentator on a variety of Tasmanian trends, recently highlighted in her Twitter feed a number of interesting statistics that have not yet been raised.

In a tweet on 24 August, under the politas hashtag, she commented:

Analysing rebased 2021 ABS population data for Tasmania for report, just wow, since the 2016 census Tasmania's population actually grew 9.7 per cent, not the 4.6 per cent we thought.

She also included a graph of the startlingly steep growth line reaching toward the 570 000 population threshold. As of 30 June, we are currently at 526 386 people. In a subsequent reply to a respondent, who pondered this might help to explain the housing challenges, she offered this comment:

Particularly, as much of the growth was in the 29-39-year-old age groups, 17 000 more than what we thought, migration ages profiles have changed considerably. We need to understand this much better. The immediate observation that can be drawn from this is that our unprecedented population growth can be as a significant factor in reduced availability of housing. As we have the reality of considerably more people living in our island state in a way that has blown the ABS's projects out of the Bass Strait.

In my own electorate, and that of many others around the state, we have seen a frenzied house building that is failing to keep up with the demand. If we explore Dr Denny's blog, that is available on her website, she goes into much greater detail in exploring these changes. Perhaps what is most worrying is the trend since 2021 that she describes in this next quote:

Tasmania recorded a significant net loss of 20 to 34 year olds during 2021. For all other years since 2017 and the average since 2014, Tasmania had recorded a net gain for the 25 to 34 age groups which was reversed in 2021. While Tasmania has historically always recorded net loss 20 to 24 year olds, it was considerably more in 2021 compared with previous years.

The net gain for age groups 40 to 69 was higher than average, particularly so for those aged 55 to 59 and 50 to 54 years of age.

The longer term impact on Tasmanian's population will be a larger bite in our age structure with a reduction in both the size and proportion of prime working age and reproductive age people, resulting in a more rapid population ageing.

Whilst Dr Denny does offer some caveats on the interpretation of this, as a possibly one-off correction of migration data, it does offer a sobering challenge that may well be spread into other areas such as access to health care and education, issues that are already subject to much heated debate and community concern at this very moment. As an example, in my own electorate and I am sure in others too, getting a timely GP appointment is increasingly difficult, especially so if you are a new resident, with many practices closed to new patients. We look to education, and in my electorate, Latrobe High School's enrolments have been growing by roughly 50 students per year, to the extent where it is turning away out-of-area enrolments at the moment on a weekly basis.

At what point do we put up a sign saying Tasmania is full? That is not to say we do not welcome new Tasmanians, it is simply a recognition that perhaps our secret is out. This is a magical place to live, and our core services are struggling to keep up with a rapidly growing population that is once again seeing a trend in returning to an ageing community.

Can Homes Tasmania provide a new wherewithal, an impetus to ensure a base supply of affordable housing for our wider community? A supply that may even free up vacancies in a congested and even more expensive private sector rental market? This is perhaps the crux of

our deliberations. If we expand on this line of debate, it is worth nothing in mixed overseas residential developments, the provision of community needs such as a health, education and public transport services, are usually the last piece in the development puzzle and come far too late. Often long after the final block has been completed, with residents desperate for local services to meet their daily needs.

It is gratifying to note the debate in the other place has explored the concept of creating livable communities that fully meet the expectations of our wider population. It is not enough just to build houses. We also have to build in livability as well as capacity. There have been ongoing moves to reduce the size of new blocks to the extent where new houses almost touch across the fence line, with a quarter-acre block consigned to history. In my own municipality with the old grid references, the blocks are huge and we could have a lot more people living in some of those areas than our planning schemes allow. Maybe some of these community housing projects with smaller units and shared facilities might offer inspiration for a new way of developing land designed for living and not for the biggest house and the smallest house. There has to be a true sense of community with a real sense of identity, and implicit community support.

It is also reassuring to know the minister has taken the time to visit successful social housing projects on the mainland. He should be fully aware of what is possible.

I expect if Homes Tasmania is to be established they must take a truly holistic approach to the provision of housing, one that comes with the necessary community infrastructure and service delivery in place to fully meet the needs of residents. Maybe the Leader could offer a Government view on the part Homes Tasmania might be playing in facilitating this.

Madam Deputy President, I was particularly inspired by another member's contribution to the debate in the other place. The member spoke with compassion and lived experience, having worked in the not-for-profit community sector for many years. The three categories of housing need she described can be refined to the necessary service delivery. Firstly, homeless people that need full wrap-around support service. Secondly, people in the middle who might be losing their home through no fault of their own and may be employed, but vulnerable and on the cusp of homelessness and increasingly so, given the escalating costs of living; and lastly, young people looking for a first home whilst not having quite enough resources behind them to take that first step to independence. We have all heard of professional young people who cannot get into the market and are finding it very difficult.

Many of these young people are in stable careers, be they trades or white-collar industries and yet they are living with their families in a way that can add to the overall pressures of finding homes large enough for the whole family. In terms of the triage of support it tails off from the first to the last categories, and this is possibly another issue to be considered in what is a mix of wicked problems. All of them have a symbiotic impact on other categories.

Then, if we add in the impact of inflationary pressures on housing costs and interest rate rises, are we in a perfect storm of despair? The other concern raised is that of governance and rightly so. If we are to see another statutory authority owned by the government with a board structure, there must be a mechanism that minimises political interference in operational matters whilst allowing full public scrutiny. I am reassured by the point that whilst the minister may issue directions to the Homes Tasmania board that are in the public interest, the minister may only do so after consulting with the board. This is a point that does echo an amendment made to the TasTAFE bill.

I also note in the bill I do not believe there is a mechanism where the minister can appoint the CEO to the board. Again, a reassuring point of good governance ensures a separation of roles, accountability and operational responsibilities.

The draft statement of ministerial expectations also provides some welcome insight into the strategic and operational side of a Homes Tasmania entity. However, there was a line in section 3.1 in the overarching expectations that caught my eye. It says:

Operate with competitive neutrality, avoiding market monopolies, and creating contestability to achieve governance outcomes.

It does come across as a bit of a word salad, as a term used before, that might impede getting the best outcomes for our community.

What would be the problem with Homes Tasmania as a government-owned entity having a competitive monopoly in social housing? With a $3.5 billion asset base and the ability to borrow money at highly competitive rates, backed by government security, I see a naturally competitive advantage with this, especially so, when it has the audacious goal of building and or acquiring 10 000 new homes in 10 years. It has to have sharp elbows in a tight market for developable land and the means to build land banks for future development.

Before I close on governance, there has been some concern both in other place and from direct stakeholder comment over the risk of improper processes regarding fast-track rezoning of land for development that would be possible under this new authority.

Given the potential capital gains that could be made in these processes, we may need to consider additional safeguards to ensure transparency and the avoidance of any suspicion of improper pecuniary interest from involved parties. Unless, of course, the Government can advise us what safeguards will be in place to eliminate the risk of possible unethical practices.

I would also like to understand, for not-for-profit stakeholders, how they build a genuine and openly symbiotic partnership with Homes Tasmania. Especially so, when building a strong professional relationship with the Homes Tasmania CEO will be a critical factor. Choosing the right person for the role may be a crucial element in its success or not, as to some extent they could subconsciously become the kingmaker or queenmaker in the Tasmanian social housing industry.

Moving on to more positive considerations, it is unusual in this policy area to observe what seems to be an outbreak of goodwill towards the intent of this bill from a variety of stakeholders - Shelter, TasCOSS and Anglicare to name just three among many. That is not to say bodies do not have concerns with this legislation, but we hope their expertise can be fully acknowledged by the Government, and that the necessary adjustments have been made to the bill.

Part of this deliberation on Homes Tasmania must fully recognise the ongoing work of many not-for-profit entities that work both independently and in partnership with government, philanthropists and corporate partners, as well as the local councils and other bodies that seek

to unilaterally address the community needs for homes and housing. I am sure we can all cite initiatives in our electorates that continue this work at a local level, and have made significant improvements to housing security in our local areas. We might even hope that if Homes Tasmania does become a reality, that the establishment phase does not inhibit addressing the desperate and urgent need for additional public and social housing.

The underlying issues may have taken the Government by surprise, and whilst we can look back and wish that had been different, and that more timely decisions had been made, we face a reality that has to be addressed. The Government has proposed this means of resolving it. I will be listening to the debate, in the close, with keen interest through the filter of: is it better or worse than what we currently have in place?

I welcome the member for Nelson's proposed amendments, and look forward to hearing from the Government with those amendments. We may yet need to consider further amendment, and I will be keen to hear the debate when we go into the Committee stage.

I am actually of a mind to support this legislation because the Government has been elected to govern. This is the Government's response to an issue. Ten thousand homes in 10 years is a huge undertaking. I am a bit wary, because I think in 2014 before the election, they said that Tasmania will be the healthiest state by 2025. That did not eventuate. There is an independent review in four years. This Government now has been in power for eight years. In four years time, when the review - or before that, because we can have them in - we can see how many of those 10 000 houses are built. This is purely this Government's initiative. This Government has taken a fair risk, I think, and if, in three years time, before the next election, they have not got some significant runs on the board - because this is their initiative, this is what they have put in place to deal with this problem, I think that is a really important thing to remember.

I do not have to agree with the Government's policy. That is not my role in this place. I have been here to make sure that the legislation that comes to enable that policy decision is safe and is in place. I appreciate the amendments from the member for Nelson to try to improve that.

I go back to the National Water Initiative when the water and sewerage was touted, 2006, and they said with the greater equity in water and sewerage, Tasmania would be able to access greater funding from the National Water Initiative. Now that may or may not have been the case. People may or may not have issues with what has happened in the water and sewerage industry in Tasmania, but there are a lot of people out there that have better quality drinking water, there are lot less stage three complaints coming in just because it was big enough to handle some of those issues. Yes, we did have times when there was sewage running down the streets in Salamanca. Yes, they have tried to work on those. Yes, the member for Launceston has stated that she did not have many troubles working with the board of water and sewerage, Mike Brewster and company, because she had direct access to them.

I do not think it is the board. I think it is the board that chooses the CEO, and the CEO can create a structure where we can link into that with issues and complaints, like they do with water and sewerage. So I am not quite so concerned. I know the member for Launceston will be happy that I pumped up its tyres there, but I am just about to deflate them again.

I do not have an issue with a skills-based board being people based in Tasmania. If they have to get somebody good from the mainland, that is not an issue for me either. If we think about it, Victoria is 3.3 times our size. Western Australia is 40 times our size. We are a small region. We need the best people in Tasmania. Personally, I do not care whether they live on the west coast, the east coast or New Zealand, as long as they can do the job, and are understanding.

That is the difference with having a skills-based board over a 10-year period. At the moment, we have a government for four years, and then the next government comes in and tries to create a structure or a project. I go back to what the member for Hobart said about broadacre back in the 1950s. Big mistake. Who was in charge of that? Government. Should they have had a skills-based board instead of politicians making those decisions? Perhaps.


That is where we are at the moment. What is not going to work is if we continue doing what we do. What is not going to work is if we say let us just fix up the legislation and let us just do this bit over here.

Let us give this legislation a chance; let us give this group a chance to go out, put it on the line, 10 000 houses, or 10 000 homes in 10 years. In three years time, the community will ask, how many have you put in place? Oh, 45, the community will vote about that and say what you suggested as a solution to this problem has not worked; or in three years time there might be 2000 more homes, and the Government can say, we got that right.

I think that is where we are. I am not here to define government policy, I am not here to say this is right or this is wrong. I am here to ensure the legislation that we put in is sound, is ethical and will be reflective of what the Government is about. Do not get me wrong, there are times when I have gone at the Government about what they are doing in other spaces, and you all have heard that. However, in this place we have elected a government to have responsible policy and a responsible way forward in this issue.

If we do not pass this, and nothing changes, the Government will say, well we tried, we tried to innovate, we tried to put in a legislation that would allow us to do this, and they did not pass it because they were a bit worried about what would happen. We have not invested enough time into this to consider whether the policy they are putting in place is the right one. However, I am certain that the Government has, because they are staking their reputation on this bill. They are staking their reputation on this organisation with a board and a CEO.

From my point of view - I think I even convinced myself - I am going to support this because I think we need to. I think we need to put that aside. We cannot continue what we are doing at the moment, because it is not going to get any better, it is not going to change. So, let us give them a chance. Let this change. I am supportive of this legislation.