Page 554 - Week 02 - Wednesday, 17 February 2016
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
addressing homelessness. It is an issue that we all take very seriously, and there is absolutely support for reducing the numbers of Canberrans who are experiencing homelessness or at risk of homelessness. It is not a partisan issue.
Workers in the homelessness sector do a fantastic job. As we have spoken about, I used to pretty much advocate on their behalf in a previous life, but that is not what we are talking about here. I am not talking down the people who work in that sector; I am trying to talk about exits from homelessness and ways to reduce, firstly, the numbers of people entering into homelessness and, secondly, those people who continue to experience homelessness or have repeat experiences of homelessness. That is what we are about here.
My colleagues have spoken a bit about renewal. That is not addressing the waiting lists; that is decanting people from one area into another area. It is giving them better housing. That is great, and I have not disagreed with that. They are in substandard housing. They do deserve better. But this government is desperately trying to brand it as urban renewal and giving people a better place to live. We all know that it is actually code for freeing up the Northbourne Avenue corridor for this desperate attempt at light rail. I did not speak much about that in my motion because I am genuinely trying to focus on the issue of homelessness and affordable housing. But those opposite have brought it up.
People are often in substandard housing. Whose fault is that? It is the fault of this government, which has been in power for a number of years. Why are they in substandard housing? There was an instance recently, you may recall, where ACT Housing purchased a block in, I think, O’Connor, a block of units about 50 years old, the same age as the units ACT Housing is moving people out of. Why? Because they have been maintained in better condition. Whose fault is that? The ACT government’s. That is what I am talking about here. It is not about the age of the housing. It is not about urban renewal. It is about getting people out of that corridor. It is not helping people already on the waiting list to move people out of those units: people with genuine, complex needs who need somewhere to live. That is what I have been trying to focus on today. Anyway, I think we all know that there is more that can be done.
The other problem we have is about potentially “decanting” people. That is a terrible term, because it is people that you are talking about. In moving people out of the Northbourne Avenue corridor, potentially we are moving them into areas where they may become socially excluded. Sometimes they may experience transport disadvantage. We have spoken about that here in this place as well. Chisholm is one example that we have spoken about, which was specifically mentioned in the Dropping off the edge report. Bonython was another. And my colleague Mr Doszpot has spoken several times about Oaks Estate and the transport disadvantage that people in Oaks Estate experience.
One thing I should mention is that Mr Rattenbury talked as if I picked a moment in time for some kind of gotcha moment. Actually, no. What I did was look at ROGS. If you would like to mention that they picked a moment in time, that is perhaps what they did. That is what I was quoting. You were trying to put your own spin on that,
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video