Vickie Burkinshaw said a council meeting proposing a solution for the town’s homeless had left the town with more questions than answers. Photo: Marguerite McKinnon.
Wagga Council listened to passionate volunteers and a resident of Wilks Park compelling them to take a more compassionate approach to homelessness in the city at its meeting on Monday night (27 July).
We heard council’s compliance orders were meant to “encourage” people to take up accommodation options. Instead, they terrified them. The first example of just how disconnected bureaucrats are from people with lived experience.
What we heard is that our councillors had “learned more tonight about the issue of homelessness than they have in the past six months”.
And we have had a public undertaking of support from the emergency working group – the ‘taskforce’ – which has guaranteed that every person sleeping rough will be provided with temporary accommodation (generally hotels or motels), and this accommodation will be available for as long as it is needed, provided people comply with the relevant rules.
We are now seeking clarification about what those rules are. Is the accommodation genuinely available until permanent housing is secured, or does it remain subject to the discretion of the hotel or temporary accommodation provider and their own policies? How can we reasonably expect people to give up what they currently consider their homes, and leave behind their possessions, without a clear understanding of the conditions attached to the accommodation being offered?
There has also been mention of the council providing storage of belongings. We need clarity about the conditions of that storage. Will there be assistance to transport belongings from the camps to the storage facilities? What are the rules governing storage, and what limitations, if any, apply?
There also remains a significant disconnect between what is reportedly being communicated to the taskforce by service providers and what is actually occurring on the ground.
No minutes from taskforce meetings have been provided, so there is no transparency about how outreach has been conducted or who has been engaged. The people living in the camps, the volunteers supporting them, and local residents all maintain that neither Homes NSW, Vinnies, nor any of the other service providers have actively engaged with people in their own environment.
We were given an undertaking by the general manager that the taskforce would endeavour to provide outreach services in all accommodation facilities, such as the hotels and Forest Hill, including mental health outreach and transport.
In our view, this should be a condition of any temporary accommodation arrangement. People should not simply be placed into accommodation without ongoing support.
More broadly, the approach being taken appears reactive rather than strategic, and paternalistic rather than person-centred.
The sight of heavy machinery at the Riverside Precinct alarmed some people, Ms Burkinshaw said. Photo: Marguerite McKinnon.
Decisions seem to be made for people rather than with them. A genuinely person-centred approach recognises that people experiencing homelessness are experts in their own lives and should be actively involved in decisions that affect them. It acknowledges that housing is not simply about providing a roof, but about supporting autonomy, dignity, choice and connection. While the GM suggested this was the approach, the delivery on the ground would suggest otherwise.
There also appears to be an assumption that any form of temporary accommodation is inherently an improvement. However, temporary accommodation can have unintended consequences. While camps are far from an ideal solution, they often provide people with a sense of autonomy, community, mutual support and belonging that can be lost when individuals are dispersed into isolated hotel rooms or cabins without adequate support. If these social connections are not recognised and maintained, the result can be increased isolation, poorer mental health and a diminished sense of agency.
Again, we believe there is a disconnect between our understanding of what constitutes safe and suitable housing – even if temporary – and the taskforce’s interpretation. Is it genuinely the expectation that someone will remain in temporary accommodation, whether that is a hotel room or a caravan park cabin, for seven to 10 years?
We respectfully request the taskforce’s strategy document, as we are now hearing that the taskforce was established before the tragic death of the baby on the beach in May. The lack of transparency surrounding the taskforce only reinforces the perception of a culture of silence. Without openness, it is difficult to have confidence that there is genuine intent to address these issues. More importantly, there can be no accountability for the taskforce as a whole or for each individual organisation represented on it – for ensuring the safety, wellbeing and dignity of people who are homeless or at risk of homelessness in our community.
And tonight, we became engaged in a game of semantics, debating language rather than developing a genuine understanding of the reality faced by people with lived experience. That is deeply disappointing, because the focus should be on meaningful outcomes for the people most affected, not on the wording used to describe their circumstances.
If this taskforce is to succeed, it must move beyond managing homelessness as a logistical problem and begin responding to it as a human issue. That requires transparency, accountability and genuine partnership with those who have lived experience, because sustainable solutions are built with people, not imposed upon them.
We need a trauma-informed and person-centred approach, with the community as active participants.
