At no time did I or any other elected member call for the shelter to be 'axed' (as was reported in the article in the Voice). What I did call for, with unanimous support from my fellow elected members, was to defer a decision on the matter to allow for discussions to take place that might produce a better outcome for all concerned.
The Voice reporter would have had in front of him at the media table the amendment calling for live-in supervision - this was in the name of Cr Maier. I seconded this purely to allow it to be debated. I spoke and voted against it on the basis that we did not have sufficient information to be able to suggest that this alone would resolve any issues.Far from there being a 'war of words' between myself and Cr Doran Wu, I supported her statements that people have a right to live independently with a sense of dignity. Simply placing people who have nothing in common except their homelessness in a house in a residential area, however, does not do justice to the dignity of either the residents of the hostel or the other residents of the local area.
I think that initiatives such as 55 Central, reported in the adjacent article, have got the balance better. Natarsha Tryl, a volunteer with 55 Central is quoted as saying: "[The homeless] really need to have something to look forward to and to feel part of the community." Well said, Natarsha.
The 55 Central website clearly sets out the philosophy of the association. This includes supporting the individual in "regaining their interdependence and valuable place in the community".
Simply living in a house is not a cure for homelessness, no matter what support is provided; being part of the community, not isolated from it, is essential.
I don't believe the article does imply you called for the shelter to be "axed" - the title refers to the call by the petitioners.
ReplyDelete