Jane Prentice (Ryan, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Homelessness Bill 2013 and Homelessness (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2013. The bills are aimed at increasing recognition and awareness of people who are homeless or at risk of homelessness. These bills are a missed opportunity because they are simply aspirational bills without any concurrent funding or reforms to improve homelessness in Australia. In their current form these bills will not make any difference to the plight of homeless Australians. As the member for Melbourne said, they are bills you have when you are not really having bills.

The coalition will not oppose the bills, but I am concerned that through this legislation the Labor government has produced yet another statement of principles without any ongoing tangible commitment to preventing or reducing homelessness on the ground. These two bills make minor amendments which are primarily administrative in nature. As the explanatory memorandum states, the bill draws national attention to the experience of homelessness and voices the aspiration that all Australians have access to appropriate, affordable, safe and sustainable housing. It sets out a range of service delivery principles to which the Commonwealth is committed and the strategies seen as necessary to reduce homelessness.

The Homelessness (Consequential Amendments) Bill repeals the Supported Accommodation Assistance Act 1994, makes some definitional changes and removes references to the superseded homelessness funding mechanism referred to in the Supported Accommodation Assistance Act 1994. This program was primarily a vehicle for providing funding to states and territories to administer the Supported Accommodation Assistance Program, which gave crisis and transitional support and accommodation services to the homeless. New funding arrangements were introduced in 2009, namely the National Partnership Agreement on Homelessness and the national affordable housing specific purpose payment. It also replaces a definition of 'homeless person', which applies in the provisions regarding the inclusion of itinerant electors on the electoral roll, to ensure that people who are homeless can still effectively participate in electoral activities.

The bills stem from a recommendation in Labor's white paper on homelessness to enact new legislation to ensure that people who are homeless receive quality services and adequate support. Their introduction follows a very lengthy journey through this parliament, including the white paper; an inquiry into homelessness legislation in 2009 by the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Family Community, Housing and Youth; and a public consultation process in mid-2012. These bills respond to some of the concerns raised throughout the committee and public consultation process.

The definition of 'homelessness' has been widened so that people staying in crisis accommodation cannot be ruled out of the definition through any concept of choice. The definition also now includes a reference to safety as a vital element in a person's living circumstances. Stakeholders believe that these definitional changes are important, ensuring as they do that people staying in crisis accommodation are not excluded from the definition of 'homeless' because they have chosen to leave their homes. Young people escaping a violent home life and mothers and their children who have had to leave home for their own safety can hardly be said to have chosen a life of homelessness. Otherwise, the bills are simply a statement of high-level aspiration for the more than 105,000 homeless Australians and the thousands of dedicated men and women who work tirelessly to support them. These bills will raise the hope and expectation that this Labor government might finally do something tangible to stem the tide of homelessness in Australia.

As we approach the final days of the 43rd Parliament, it is clear that this government wants to pass these bills to seem to be doing something without making any difference to funding or service provision for homelessness. Homeless Australians do not need more esoteric aspiration. They need support and they need funding. Labor is offering neither through these bills. If we look at the track record of the Rudd-Gillard governments, it is clear that they have mismanaged their homelessness policy. In 2008, Kevin Rudd said that homelessness was a 'national obscenity' and promised to halve the rate of homelessness in Australia by 2020. In fact, under Labor's watch, homelessness has only increased.

Between 2006 and 2011, ABS census figures show a 17 per cent increase in the number of homeless people in Australia, or an increase of over 15,500 people, from 89,728 in 2006 to 105,237 in 2011. Under Labor, more than 17 per cent of Australia's homeless are now under the age of 12, and homeless families represent almost one-third of those receiving support in 2011-12. In most cases, these are single adults with children.

On 2 May 2013, the Australian National Audit Office, the ANAO, released a report which revealed major failings in the government's key homelessness funding deal with the states and territories, the National Partnership Agreement on Homelessness, or NPAH. According to the report, the government is unlikely to achieve its own target of a seven per cent reduction in homelessness by 1 July 2013. The government's likely failure to reach its seven per cent target has also been confirmed by a recent COAG Reform Council report, Homelessness 2011–2012: comparing performance across Australia, and by officials from the Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs at Senate estimates hearings this month.

The Labor government has simply increased reporting compliance without knowing whether federal funding has resulted in a commensurate increase in the ability of states and territories to deliver front-line services to some of our most vulnerable citizens. This was revealed by the ANAO, which detailed multiple problems with the NPAH. Firstly, state and territory governments are not required to report financial information to the Commonwealth under the NPAH, meaning the Commonwealth has no way to know if jurisdictions are meeting their financial commitments under the agreement. Secondly, payments to the states and territories are not linked to outcomes, milestones or performance benchmarks. Thirdly, the absence of outcomes based reporting means the government is unable to make meaningful assessments of overall progress within each jurisdiction, or nationally, and receives very little information on whether the National Partnership Agreement on Homelessness reforms are even working at all. Lastly, problems with homelessness data used under the NPAH mean the government cannot even measure changes in homelessness levels in Australia over the life of the agreement.

Once you move past the overblown rhetoric, Labor's lack of commitment to reducing homelessness in real terms is revealed by the facts. In the 2013-14 federal budget, Labor has not committed any funding beyond next year to homelessness. Instead, this government has allocated $159 million in 2013-14 for a one-year so-called Transitional National Partnership Agreement on Homelessness with the states and territories. The process of re-negotiating the National Partnership Agreement on Homelessness resulted in continued instability for homelessness service providers and Labor's last-minute one-year deal to extend funding beyond 1 July 2013 is a short-term band-aid solution that does not provide certainty for these services and the thousands of homeless people who rely on them. Under Labor, the future of homelessness funding in Australia will remain uncertain. Beyond 2014, this government has allocated nothing in the forward estimates to fund vital homelessness services across the country. Even if this Labor government had provided meaningful funds for homelessness, the way they negotiated the funding arrangements for homelessness means it is all but impossible to know whether the NPAH reforms are working at all.

The coalition will not oppose this legislation but we do not believe the worthy sentiments it expresses will make any difference to homeless Australians on the ground. The coalition is committed to supporting the homeless with more than fine words. We are committed to combating the many and complex causes of homelessness, supporting homeless Australians with real practical assistance and preventing even more Australians from falling into homelessness. Unfortunately, we cannot wave a magic wand and house all the homeless. Setting arbitrary targets and making promises to solve the plight of our underprivileged is not the best approach, because we simply cannot comprehend the complex nature of the issues they face. These can include domestic violence, substance abuse, mental illness and adverse economic circumstances such as sudden job loss.

A coalition government, if elected, would streamline homelessness services and cut red tape for providers, along with a $1.5 billion package for mental health. Providing real support for mental health services will be an important preventive step to supported at-risk Australians. The coalition will not oppose the bills. However, setting out aspirational goals in the last days of this parliament is simply too little, too late for a government which has not been serious about making any difference to the plight of homeless Australians.

See this speech in context