Page 555 - Week 02 - Wednesday, 17 February 2016

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video


Mr Rattenbury, and put words in my mouth. Perhaps it was not quite correct. But I guess that is what it is all about for you.

Let us not forget, when we talk about this, the fact that we have fantastic homelessness services here in the ACT. I have visited very many of them. I am sure that Ms Berry and Mr Rattenbury, in their roles, have also done so. It is not only me. They do a great job. There is more that can be done, but what we need is exits from homelessness. We have the highest rate of people receiving services from homelessness services in the ACT. That is a good thing. I have said that in the past and I will say it again here today. But when I spoke to my motion, I also talked about churn, people going through the homelessness service who might have three months in this service and then have to leave. They might have two weeks in another service. There are no exits from homelessness, and that was the whole point of my motion today.

I remind you—I did not mention it earlier—that according to the census, which is currently the 2011 census, the ACT had the second worst rate of homelessness in Australia, second only to the Northern Territory. According to that 2011 census, the highest single reason for people seeking assistance from a homelessness service—involving 37 per cent of those who seek assistance from a service—was housing crisis. The second highest was domestic violence and relationship breakdown. The third highest was financial difficulty—17 per cent. If you add housing crisis and financial difficulties together, you have over half of the people in the ACT seeking assistance from homelessness services experiencing financial difficulties or housing crisis. That is the thrust of my motion today. It is about those exits from homelessness and working on affordable housing.

In the ACT government’s current desperation to talk about urban renewal, they are actually derailing our efforts to fix homelessness and address affordable housing. They are stopping people who have been on the waiting list for years from finding housing. That is what the concern is. We need to provide support to people who are experiencing homelessness or are at risk of homelessness. They often have very complex needs. Without addressing the reasons why they are experiencing homelessness or are at risk of homelessness, they may simply go back to homelessness once they are provided with housing. But without housing, you will never fix homelessness. That is the approach, if you like, that is taken through models like Common Ground and the housing first models. That is what we need to think about.

One thing we did not really touch on—the minister and Mr Rattenbury avoided it for some reason I am not really sure of—was refugees. I have talked to providers who tell me that they are starting to see people who came here as refugees having to leave the home that was provided to them because they cannot afford to maintain their housing. What they are doing there is adding to the demand for homelessness services. So we are not providing a long-term sustainable solution for people. Sure, they might have housing for a couple of months when they first arrive, but are we going to keep doing that to people? That is quite damaging. It is not a good solution in order to get some political mileage about saying that we will accept refugees.


Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video