Waterloo South Demolitions

Homes NSW has engaged McMahon Services to undertake the demolition of Stage 1 of Waterloo South. Homes NSW has advised tenants that demolition will likely start end of June and is expected to take place over 9 months. Demolition will take place once buildings are no longer occupied. One building is being used for supported accommodation while awaiting the redevelopment and will be the last building demolished. Homes NSW has advised that currently there are 14 people still awaiting relocation from the Stage 1 site. Of these Homes NSW say 12 have accepted properties, but have not yet moved as some require work to be completed on the properties that they will move into. Only 2 have not yet agreed to move to new properties.

On Monday 25 May the contractors started work to erect fencing and to undertake due diligence. The initial “Notice of Intention to Carry out Demolition Work” from the contractor lacked detail about what was happening and Homes NSW had to issue a follow up letter a couple of days later with a little more information. Homes NSW has been saying little about relocations and its issues so the information about numbers remaining have been conveyed verbally at meetings and are not in writing making what is happening with relocations very opaque and leaving room publicly for “eviction” and “demolishing buildings that still have people in them” narratives.

No one should be surprised that the demolition announcement has whipped up a reaction. After all, since the first notification 10 years ago, many tenants didn’t believe anything would happen, that changes when the demolition starts.

The demolition is also a focus for those with a myriad of concerns about the Waterloo South process. While many of the battles may have been lost for Waterloo South the demolition provides a focal point for political points to be made that protesters hope might influence this and future public housing decisions. This includes arguments about estate redevelopment vs new build on surplus government land and its associated impact on the housing waiting list, renovation vs knock-down and rebuild, arguments about if government or CHPs should run new housing, government funding of public housing vs the sell-off of government land. All these are valid concerns in the wider housing debate but they are also outside the current consultation parameters for Waterloo South. The issues did not go away and it shouldn’t be a surprise that imminent demolitions have provided a focus for them being raised.

In Waterloo these discussions are also very political because of statements before the last election about the ALP stopping the sell off of government land and the subsequent verbal gymnastics about what a sell off is or isn’t, alongside a lack of clarity about the contractual process. It is compounded because the public housing vote has been a strong supporter of local ALP MP Ron Hoenig so an opportunity to use his and the government’s missteps on public housing to weaken that grip is also in play.

The concern however is that political messages for effect often get articulated in exaggerated terms, and detail and nuance is lost. Photos for example of protesters taken in front of Matavai and Turanga use Waterloo public housing icons for a political message, but also draw protests from people living in those buildings as they are not impacted by the current demolitions, which are at the other end of the estate. The eviction language elicits images of people being put out on the street homeless and avoids the details that Homes NSW has to find places for the people needing to move, that people are being given choices of places to move to and time to make decisions about what best suits them.

Language is powerful and it can whip up people’s anxieties. In a public housing community that has concentrated people with a range of different issues we need to be mindful of the impact of how we talk about the redevelopment and protest so as not to unnecessarily whip up anxiety for Waterloo residents. Of course, that is difficult when the aim of the protest is to make the Government uncomfortable about its policy and practice.

REDWatch members reflect the community diversity and we have members involved in the current demolition protests and those who can’t see the development come soon enough. Given this diversity REDWatch has not lent its name to this action, but recognises the importance and validity of many of the issues being raised.

Geoff Turnbull, REDWatch Spokesperson 28 May 2026