Speech on Sustainable Housing

Sustainable living in the urban environment forum

It's great to be here - to be with so many people interested in sustainable housing shows how far we have come. On behalf of the Greens Party thanks for the invite to participate in today's forum.

As a Greens member of our state parliament, inevitably a great proportion of my work is on the issue of development. Our office is always being contacted by community groups who are outraged over one proposal or another, and we do what we can to assist. Because of this pattern of work, we are sometimes seen as anti-development and I often am questioned as to whether or not there is such a thing as good development.

The answer, of course, is absolutely yes - what we as a society desperately require is a shift to well designed, community-oriented, sustainable housing. We need an end to planning laws, which allow lowest-common denominator housing to be foist upon unwilling communities. And we all have a role to play in this achieving this goal: politicians, government, the industry and the general public.

Cost is of course a vexed issue. Sydney is caught in an ever-worsening crisis of affordable housing. The poor are being progressively excluded from the inner-suburbs and homelessness is booming. Any responsible public policy with regard to housing must tackle these twin goals: sustainability and affordability. One without the other will constitute failure. We must seek strategies that will advance both causes simultaneously.

Some local Councils have taken positive steps towards sustainability. Leichhardt Council, for instance, has for some year's required new developments or renovations that alter more than 50% of a dwelling to include a solar power component. Strathfield Council has recently introduced a similar requirement with respect to rainwater tanks. Whilst these Councils are to be commended, it requires the intervention of the state government to raise the bar statewide and to avoid piecemeal outcomes.

The state government should use its planning powers to require minimum sustainability standards for new dwellings and significant renovations across NSW. The Greens believe statewide uniformity, via a State Environment Planning Policy or SEPP, would permanently alter the mindset of those architects, builders and developers who may be reluctant to embrace the need for change.

Even more importantly, statewide uniformity would introduce economies of scale for currently expensive items such a solar panels. It could be a vital element in meeting the twin challenges of sustainability and affordability. It could transform sustainable housing design and construction from a niche industry to the mainstream, thereby driving investment and innovation in new approaches and technologies.

Of course state and federal governments also have an important role to play in terms of rebates and financial incentives for sustainable housing. Well-targeted incentives can have a beneficial impact many times their initial dollar value. There is also a pressing need for certainty in the delivery of rebates and incentives. Businesses, which do rebated installations, need to be able to plan effectively into the future; otherwise there is in fact a disincentive for new businesses to set up in this area. An abrupt end to a rebate may in fact send some businesses broke and damage confidence in the fledgling area of sustainable housing.

And indeed rebates can dramatically improve the affordability of sustainable housing. As we know, some sustainable technologies, such solar power systems, cost more up front but have the potential to pay themselves off over time. Well-designed financial incentives can overcome that initial inability or reluctance to pay on the part of the consumer.

The other key responsibility of government is the overall pattern of landuse planning. The ecological value of sustainable housing is dramatically degraded if the householders have to own 3 cars and drive everywhere they go because there is no public transport. We need to see an end to the development of new suburbs that lack basic social and environmental requirements: easy access to public transport, shops, schools and employment. The Greens argue it is not good enough for governments to give suburbs the go ahead on the basis of a vague plan for a railway line or a bus transitway that may arrive in 20 years, or indeed may never arrive at all. And of course we must consider the environmental cost of clearing vegetation or subsuming agricultural land for new housing.

Urban consolidation has been heralded as a panacea to the problems of sprawl, and the Greens certainly support urban consolidation if done correctly. All too often however urban consolidation has been used as the justification for business as usual, rather than as a precious opportunity to finally get it right. And it must be noted that the loss of public open space or remnant vegetation in urban areas has highly negative social and environmental implications.

Achieving sustainable housing, like many areas of social change, can often be very frustrating. Many barriers stand between us and our goals. There is most likely in this room sufficient expertise and understanding of the issue to achieve our goals, but the impediments must be removed first. Speaking as a Green politician, and with first-hand experience of the processes of government, it seems to me that the most fundamental barrier we face is a lack of political will.

In my experience the government bureaucracy is often quite supportive. The weakest link is usually the politicians and the culture of excessive caution, which pervades our governments.

It's a great tragedy because I firmly believe that if our political leaders were willing to provide the leadership that we need in this area then the public would support them. Measures to improve the sustainability of our housing stock would be well received, as long as they met the prerequisite of affordability. Inevitably though it ends up in the too hard basket, consigned to the backburner by caution, indecision and even, on occasion, outright hostility.

The development industry is of course also at fault. Many in that industry are resistant to departing from their current profitable path of lowest common denominator housing, which demonstrates why the government must provide the framework and the leadership. The great worry however is that all too often the tail can wag the dog - the relationship between government and the development industry can become distorted by political party donations and political pressures. The recent events at Rockdale Council are an unfortunate case in point.

I remain confident and optimistic however for the future of sustainable housing. The key breakthrough will come when our governments begin to focus their considerable resources on driving change. That breakthrough will in turn only come, however, from the efforts of the community and concerned individuals.

Progressive social change comes from the bottom up. That is the value of events such as today, and I strongly encourage you all to maintain the pressure because sustainable and affordable housing is so desperately needed.

As a Greens member of our state parliament, inevitably a great proportion of my work is on the issue of development. Our office is always being contacted by community groups who are outraged over one proposal or another, and we do what we can to assist. Because of this pattern of work, we are sometimes seen as anti-development and I often am questioned as to whether or not there is such a thing as good development.

The answer, of course, is absolutely yes - what we as a society desperately require is a shift to well designed, community-oriented, sustainable housing. We need an end to planning laws, which allow lowest-common denominator housing to be foist upon unwilling communities. And we all have a role to play in this achieving this goal: politicians, government, the industry and the general public.

Cost is of course a vexed issue. Sydney is caught in an ever-worsening crisis of affordable housing. The poor are being progressively excluded from the inner-suburbs and homelessness is booming. Any responsible public policy with regard to housing must tackle these twin goals: sustainability and affordability. One without the other will constitute failure. We must seek strategies that will advance both causes simultaneously.

Some local Councils have taken positive steps towards sustainability. Leichhardt Council, for instance, has for some year's required new developments or renovations that alter more than 50% of a dwelling to include a solar power component. Strathfield Council has recently introduced a similar requirement with respect to rainwater tanks. Whilst these Councils are to be commended, it requires the intervention of the state government to raise the bar statewide and to avoid piecemeal outcomes.

The state government should use its planning powers to require minimum sustainability standards for new dwellings and significant renovations across NSW. The Greens believe statewide uniformity, via a State Environment Planning Policy or SEPP, would permanently alter the mindset of those architects, builders and developers who may be reluctant to embrace the need for change.

Even more importantly, statewide uniformity would introduce economies of scale for currently expensive items such a solar panels. It could be a vital element in meeting the twin challenges of sustainability and affordability. It could transform sustainable housing design and construction from a niche industry to the mainstream, thereby driving investment and innovation in new approaches and technologies.

Of course state and federal governments also have an important role to play in terms of rebates and financial incentives for sustainable housing. Well-targeted incentives can have a beneficial impact many times their initial dollar value. There is also a pressing need for certainty in the delivery of rebates and incentives. Businesses, which do rebated installations, need to be able to plan effectively into the future; otherwise there is in fact a disincentive for new businesses to set up in this area. An abrupt end to a rebate may in fact send some businesses broke and damage confidence in the fledgling area of sustainable housing.

And indeed rebates can dramatically improve the affordability of sustainable housing. As we know, some sustainable technologies, such solar power systems, cost more up front but have the potential to pay themselves off over time. Well-designed financial incentives can overcome that initial inability or reluctance to pay on the part of the consumer.

The other key responsibility of government is the overall pattern of landuse planning. The ecological value of sustainable housing is dramatically degraded if the householders have to own 3 cars and drive everywhere they go because there is no public transport. We need to see an end to the development of new suburbs that lack basic social and environmental requirements: easy access to public transport, shops, schools and employment. The Greens argue it is not good enough for governments to give suburbs the go ahead on the basis of a vague plan for a railway line or a bus transitway that may arrive in 20 years, or indeed may never arrive at all. And of course we must consider the environmental cost of clearing vegetation or subsuming agricultural land for new housing.

Urban consolidation has been heralded as a panacea to the problems of sprawl, and the Greens certainly support urban consolidation if done correctly. All too often however urban consolidation has been used as the justification for business as usual, rather than as a precious opportunity to finally get it right. And it must be noted that the loss of public open space or remnant vegetation in urban areas has highly negative social and environmental implications.

Achieving sustainable housing, like many areas of social change, can often be very frustrating. Many barriers stand between us and our goals. There is most likely in this room sufficient expertise and understanding of the issue to achieve our goals, but the impediments must be removed first. Speaking as a Green politician, and with first-hand experience of the processes of government, it seems to me that the most fundamental barrier we face is a lack of political will.

In my experience the government bureaucracy is often quite supportive. The weakest link is usually the politicians and the culture of excessive caution, which pervades our governments.

It's a great tragedy because I firmly believe that if our political leaders were willing to provide the leadership that we need in this area then the public would support them. Measures to improve the sustainability of our housing stock would be well received, as long as they met the prerequisite of affordability. Inevitably though it ends up in the too hard basket, consigned to the backburner by caution, indecision and even, on occasion, outright hostility.

The development industry is of course also at fault. Many in that industry are resistant to departing from their current profitable path of lowest common denominator housing, which demonstrates why the government must provide the framework and the leadership. The great worry however is that all too often the tail can wag the dog - the relationship between government and the development industry can become distorted by political party donations and political pressures. The recent events at Rockdale Council are an unfortunate case in point.

I remain confident and optimistic however for the future of sustainable housing. The key breakthrough will come when our governments begin to focus their considerable resources on driving change. That breakthrough will in turn only come, however, from the efforts of the community and concerned individuals.

Progressive social change comes from the bottom up. That is the value of events such as today, and I strongly encourage you all to maintain the pressure because sustainable and affordable housing is so desperately needed.