Page 3249 - Week 08 - Wednesday, 22 August 2012
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
One concern is that the proposed sites do not currently meet health and safety requirements for buildings that operate as overnight shelters. More importantly, we need to ensure that, should there be a critical incident such as a fire, there are safety systems in place that allow people to exit the building in a timely manner. It is a very glib response from those opposite to say that sleeping rough is an unsafe experience and to ask if this is the better alternative. We are not saying that sleeping rough is not indeed unsafe and that those people are not in a risky environment, but if we are to give support to this we need to be sure that we do it with our eyes open.
We know that people experiencing homelessness are likely to be facing many challenges as well as sleeping rough, and it is important that people who support them are equipped to do so. I have never, ever said that volunteers are too old. That is just absolute nonsense continued by Mrs Dunne over there. I have concerns about people who volunteer. I recognise that Ms Bresnan has also acknowledged that, I think, UnitingCare church has talked about volunteer training, training for the volunteers that would participate in this activity. While churches have long been involved in supporting vulnerable members of our community, my understanding is that the safe shelter proposal is to be run by volunteers, and I have concerns for their safety as well.
None of that is a reason to say an absolute no to safe shelter, but it is simply a reason to work with them to make sure that we get it right. We want to ensure that the safe shelter group has in place a safe and sensible plan, and Building Code compliance, so that the initiative can have the best chance of success.
We have heard from Mr Seselja on this, and now Mrs Dunne. No doubt we could even hear more. But what do the Liberals really believe that we should be doing on homelessness? They believe, according to one of their candidates, in a letter authorised by their party office, that support for homelessness is “negotiable”. Since I raised this two months ago, they have done nothing to withdraw that statement. Today is their opportunity, but I do not believe that we will hear that at all.
Mrs Dunne spoke about hypocrisy and said that we should be doing all we can to extend a helping hand to vulnerable people. I have got a letter that is tabled today—I am quite happy to table these letters—suggesting that Mr Smyth is actively opposed to youth accommodation in Chisholm. So Jack, who is homeless, sleeping rough—could he be supported? He could be, but, according to Mr Smyth, not in Chisholm. Mr Smyth is actively opposed to supporting the Salvation Army supporting up to six homeless youth.
So here we are. Talk about hypocrisy. Those over there say that homelessness is simply negotiable, at the bottom of the list: “We’ll get to it some time.” That is according to Mr Smyth, in the letter that I showed him today. I said, “Is this your position?” He scurried back to his side.
Mr Smyth interjecting—
MS BURCH: He can deny it now; I encourage him to. It is about contacting Brendan Smyth, who actively opposes the proposal.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video