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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 12 Hansard (13 November) . . Page.. 4138 ..

Debate resumed.

MS TUCKER: The officer responding felt that that was the concern of the Australian Bureau of Statistics and not of the department, which was very alarming. I had a lot of feedback from the community sector after that appeared in the Canberra Times. The community sector were outraged to see such little understanding from the Minister and the department on the level of homelessness. Homelessness is not about just who is living on the streets. Homelessness is about who is moving from one friend's garage to another. Homelessness is about three families living in one house. Homelessness is about several young people - sometimes up to 15, we were told in the Social Policy Committee - living in a bed-sitter. Homelessness is not that difficult to define. It is something that we need to understand because it is a key indicator of the social wellbeing of a community.

In the discussion of need, sometimes people trying to avoid the issue will say, "How do you define need anyway?". For the interest of members, I will quote the American sociologist John Bradshaw. Bradshaw has defined four different types of need. We have felt need, when people feel the need for a particular thing; expressed need, when people tell others about the need they feel; comparative need, when people in one locality lack a thing that people in another locality have; and normative need, when experts tell people that they need a particular thing that they had not realised they needed. These four aspects of need, in combination, have a stronger indication.

Social planning forms a vital part of the way that governments guide the future of their communities. A community the size of the ACT can no longer accept decisions made about the provision or withdrawal of social services on a largely ad hoc basis. This community deserves no less than to have decisions made in line with the recommendations of a well-researched and widely disseminated plan, a plan with which the community have been involved and their contributions to which are valued. A great deal has been made of the need to live within our means and make decisions based on available resources. Without a social plan, it is impossible to make informed decisions which are consistent with identified criteria to meet community need.

It has been argued that a long-term view such as that espoused by a social plan is expensive and a luxury we cannot afford in this economic climate. I would argue, however, that a clear plan with a focus on preventative mechanisms is ultimately less expensive than the crisis management approach currently often in place. Crisis management is a value-laden exercise underpinned with notions of rescuing people who are disadvantaged in our community. A social plan, on the other hand, is a value-neutral exercise which empowers and encourages a community to fulfil its potential. It is of the utmost importance that we break away from the prevailing wisdom that unless social problems can be solved within the three-year political cycle they are not worth addressing. We as a responsible legislature must work cooperatively for the implementation of strategies to combat social problems and meet community need over the long term.

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