Susan Templeman (Macquarie, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2016-2017 and Appropriation Bill (No.4) 2016-2017. These bills made me think about what budgets need to do. Along with giving businesses the confidence to employ people, supporting infrastructure, funding healthcare and schools, and giving communities the opportunity to address particular issues they face at a local level, the budget should also be looking to provide the services that people need when they are at their lowest, and yet again this government has failed. It has failed time and time again.

I want to talk about the funding of one service that steps up when women in particular are at their lowest. Rape and Domestic Violence Services Australia have been internationally recognised as the best practice service delivery for women, men and children who have experienced sexual assault and family violence, and they currently provide counselling through the 1800RESPECT hotline. In fact, their service is of such a quality that the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse relies on their expertise and on this service.

Victims of domestic violence and sexual assault who call 1800RESPECT are calling because they need professional and often urgent help. This is the only specialised sexual assault and domestic violence service in Australia. The 1800RESPECT service has a model where trained counsellors answer the phone; they do not just park you in a queue or pass you to the next available operator. They talk to you, find out what is going on and identify the best way forward.

In early 2016, RDVSA asked for an additional $2 million in funding to cope with the dramatic increase in calls. Instead of providing the funding, the federal government paid Medibank Health Solutions, part of the Medibank Private health insurance group, to provide a triage service at a cost of $3.5 million. This is the call centre approach. It drives us crazy when we are calling our local phone provider, a bank or an insurance company, so you have to wonder why anyone would think it was the right model for victims of rape or domestic violence.

The minister seems to think that just because a phone call gets picked up it is automatically a better service. He clearly does not have a clue about what is involved in trauma counselling. Unfortunately, last month RDVSA was given four days to submit their expression of interest to continue their contract to run 1800RESPECT—four days to prepare a lengthy submission, a time-consuming application that in the end will determine whether or not this vital service remains a specialist counselling service or becomes a call centre.

One of the claims to the ABC's 7.30 by Medibank Health Solutions last week was that they have only received 64 complaints about the service. The minister tells us that the number is actually 62 and that there is no inconsistency between that and the number revealed at the Senate estimates hearings recently of 33 complaints. However, it would be good to confirm that every one of those complaints has been conveyed to the Department of Social Services. What the minister has not explained is the discrepancy between these numbers and the more than 200 complaints about the new service logged directly from distressed women who are unable to get through to a trauma counsellor.

While the people who phone this number might not, at the time, always recognise their own needs for counselling and specialist advice, they are giving a cry for help; they are turning to a service. We have a responsibility to recognise the fragility of these situations and to have adequate resources at the ready for each and every person who manages to reach out. The minister needs to explain how the $9 million in funding allocated in 2015-16 was spent. What proportion of that money stayed with MHS? What proportion went to RDVSA? How much of that $9 million went to KPMG?

Most importantly, Minister Porter should reassure the people of Australia that the current tender process for 1800RESPECT will not result in any loss of quality, loss of expertise or loss of service to people who need help. Rather than vilifying ASU secretary Natalie Lang, who is in parliament today with her frontline members—people who work every day with victims of sexual assault and domestic violence—the minister should be working to ensure their expertise is acknowledged and valued, and he should learn from it. He says that their campaign is disgusting. But what I think is disgusting is when you have a minister who allows a for-profit company to profit from women and children who have been raped or are victims of sexual and family violence.

Of all the measures in the 2016 budget, the other areas I want to talk about are homelessness and housing affordability. These are issues that in some ways were not really looked at in that budget. Housing affordability is an issue this government has failed to address consistently. It claims it will deal with it in the coming budget, but without dealing with negative gearing and capital gains tax you cannot have much hope of a comprehensive approach.

I was disappointed last week to hear, at a breakfast hosted by the Australian Institute of Architects, the Assistant Minister to the Treasurer again rule out dealing with negative gearing. These are people who have given some thought to the housing situation in Australia. At that breakfast the president of the institute, Professor Ken Maher, joined the very long list of experts saying that the way property is taxed, including negative gearing, is in need of reform.

Let's keep in mind that the government has done nothing in its budget to assist home building or home renting. It was this government that closed down the National Rental Affordability Scheme, which was one of the best schemes delivering good housing at reasonable cost. Thanks to that program, across the country there were 30,000 new affordable units constructed, and it was on track to achieve 50,000. That is a pretty big improvement for rentals. In my community, in 2010 we saw the first 18 new units in Springwood, which then Housing Minister Tanya Plibersek and the then member for Macquarie, Bob Debus, opened. This was all about making housing accessible for seniors, and I take pride in that building that I walk past in Springwood, operated by Uniting, in the heart of our community. Sadly, the program funding was not continued.

This government also scrapped the first home saver account, which was helping people save for their first home. It does not even have a minister for housing and homelessness, as our shadow minister in the other place, Senator Cameron, is good at reminding us. As recently as last week, the Prime Minister delivered a cruel blow to Australian first home buyers who might have been hoping that, even though the previous budget did not take action, the coming budget would. When asked to show some leadership on housing affordability, he declined. He said it was overwhelmingly a state responsibility because the states control planning. Well, that is only one part of the equation. The supply side, the demand side and the tax side are all going to fit together. So, in spite of promises hinted at by a variety of government ministers, I do not hold much hope that we will see a comprehensive approach to this issue.

Let's look at the other side of the issue, again barely addressed in the previous budget: homelessness. We have really well-intentioned groups across the Blue Mountains and Hawkesbury who receive some funding—sometimes not very much government funding and sometimes none—to provide meals and support to homeless people, and they provide support in so many ways. But the good people who run these services really should not even have half the job that they have to do. We should not be in a situation where people cannot access a roof over their head. As beautiful as our mountains and riverbanks are, people should not be sleeping there because they have nowhere else to go.

A report by the Melbourne Sustainable Society Institute has found that, for every dollar spent on helping people avoid homelessness, $2.70 will flow to the community over 20 years. In fact, they show that, by providing one last-resort bed, you get a net benefit of $10,800 a year. So you would have to wonder why the coalition has cut $44 million a year in capital and development funding for emergency and crisis accommodation, starting in the disastrous 2014-15 budget and remaining in place in subsequent budgets. This has led to a shortfall of $132 million for homelessness support.

A survey that was held in my electorate last year, overlapping into the electorate of Lindsay, showed the enormous cost of homelessness to the health system. Homelessness across Penrith, the Blue Mountains and the Hawkesbury cost the health system almost a quarter of a million dollars in just six months, according to the Heading Home—Ending Homelessness Here! project. The project, which was led by Wentworth Community Housing in partnership with Platform Youth Services and Mission Australia and supported by the Mercy Foundation, surveyed 78 individuals and families. It found that, of the 66 individuals surveyed, 63 had one or more interactions with emergency departments, ambulance transport and hospitalisation over that period. The survey showed not only the significant social and health challenges of homelessness but the economic cost to the community. The cost of $250,000 to the health system relates just to the people who were surveyed. If we take into account the people who were found but were not able to be surveyed, the cost is significantly greater.

Wentworth Community Housing suggests that a model of community collaboration on housing solutions and support for people experiencing homelessness to reduce this financial burden on the health system would be an effective way to end homelessness in our region. As research from the University of Queensland shows, the cost to government of homelessness is greater than the cost of providing permanent supportive housing. They also subscribe to a principle of housing first. It is pretty hard to deal with the physical, mental and social issues of homelessness without a bed to sleep in. I would hope that we will see some moves towards addressing these issues as we move into the next budget period.

I also want to talk specifically about youth homelessness. Some of the reasons young people experience homelessness are domestic and family violence and relationship or family breakdown. Youth unemployment does not help, nor does youth underemployment. We also know that those who first experience homelessness at a young age are more likely to experience persistent homelessness in adulthood, and the cost to the community, as I have said, increases the longer a person has been homeless. It blows out. According to Homelessness Australia, these young people are more likely to disengage with education and employment and be exposed to other factors which damage their health, such as drug use, poor nutrition, limited access to medical care and exposure to violence. If intervention happens early, there is enormous potential for young homeless people to succeed.

I know one young woman in the Blue Mountains who found herself couch surfing just before her 18th birthday. Thanks to supportive friends and a network of caring mountains people, she was able to live safely with a family while she finished her HSC and went on to not only complete her university honours degree but also find employment in the social policy area of the Public Service. She is a very good friend and I know she will use her experiences to ensure good policy is being developed to support individuals and families who find themselves in the most challenging circumstances. However, without a Centrelink system that provided support for her as she finished school and studied at university and HECS that allowed her to study without a $100,000 debt, it would not have been possible. Government safety nets have a key role to play here, but the circumstances for young people like this remain fragile for quite a period of time. I hate to think what the consequences would have been had she received a Centrelink robo-debt letter as she was tackling these challenges.

My point is that we should not be content with simply funding services that assist the homeless. We need to see programs that reduce homelessness. At the last census there were 105,000 people identified as homeless and over 5,000 people were sleeping rough every single night. That is a disgrace. That is a crisis. If those 5,000 people who sleep rough could be accommodated in safe places, the net benefit to the community, based on the Melbourne Sustainable Society Institute's research would be $54 million a year. Their solution involves constructing new, permanent, last-resort accommodation stock, protecting existing accommodation. All levels of government must take a hand, including this one.

See this speech in context