Page 4391 - Week 12 - Thursday, 24 October 2019
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
other services. Certainly the cost model developed by the Justice and Community Safety Directorate showed very clearly the savings that can be made by investing in resolving people’s difficulties earlier rather than later. This is an approach that holds appeal for not just those interested in a just society but also the economists and treasury—not to suggest that you cannot be both.
As the motion before you notes, the number of people in Finland who experience long-term homelessness has dropped by more than 35 per cent in a decade, due in large part to their policy of unconditionally giving someone a home as soon as it is needed. Many homelessness policies and programs work on the premise that the person who is homeless has to sort out other issues in their lives such as substance misuse or their mental health problems or participation in education before they can get permanent accommodation. At the very least, they are likely to live in emergency or transitional accommodation for some time before they are able to access longer term housing. But Finland does the opposite. It gives people a home first, which gives them the opportunity to work on resolving those issues from a safe and secure starting point.
It is worth looking more closely at what Finland has done in order to understand why this reduction has occurred. They are not alone. There are other jurisdictions across the globe that have successfully reduced their number of people who are homeless. This includes numerous cities in the United States and across Canada.
Preventing and reducing homelessness requires special focus and requires coordinated approaches. There is no one-size-fits-all solution. Obviously, simply providing a roof over someone’s head is not sufficient in and of itself. Coordinated supports also need to be put in place, particularly if the person is experiencing severe mental health issues or drug and alcohol issues, as is often the case, or if they are escaping family violence and have experienced trauma.
As is also noted in the motion before you, colleagues, Common Ground in Brisbane undertook an evaluation which showed that governments can save $13,000 per person per year if they provide people who are chronically homeless with access to secure, long-term housing and relevant support services. The Common Ground model was, of course, included in the parliamentary agreement for the Eighth Assembly as something that the Greens had put forward. The government is now committed to building a second Common Ground in Dickson.
The Queensland Common Ground evaluation report showed that people who suffer from chronic homelessness often have complex needs relating to health, disabilities, abuse and addiction, resulting in high costs associated with emergency medical and policing resources. Supporting people experiencing homelessness through accommodation, safe housing and targeted services, as provided by the Brisbane Common Ground, resulted in a significant reduction in the number of other services that needed to be provided, delivering high-value savings to the community.
We hope to see similar savings generated by the model in the ACT. Certainly it would have to be cheaper than providing motel accommodation for six to eight weeks, which
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video