Inquiry into the provision and regulation of supported accommodation in Queensland
Submission No: 131
Submitted by: Table Eight
Publication:
Attachments:
Submitter Comments:
2nd February 2024
CommiSee Secretary
CSSC
Parliament House
George Street
Brisbane Qld 4000
CC: cssc@parliament.qld.gov.au
RE: INQUIRY INTO THE PROVISION AND REGULATION OF SUPPORTED ACCOMMODATION IN
QUEENSLAND
Dear CommiSee Secretary
Subject: Submission to the Community Support and Services CommiSee Inquiry into
Supported Accommoda;on
Dear Community Support and Services CommiSee
This submission comes from Table Eight, a social group that morphed through the commiSee of a large Gold Coast Surf Life Saving Club and meets regularly for social and intellectual support and discussions. The Public Advocates Report makes 17 recommenda;ons. All 17 recommenda;ons have merit. Addi;onally we agree that there needs to be separa;on between accommoda;on provider and humanitarian care. In reviewing Supported Accommoda;on there is poten4al for unwanted or extremely nega4ve outcomes. To be appropriate the provision of accommoda;on to people needing a framework to live independently in the community must recognise that the ‘accommoda4on model’ is not isolated to its individual components; hotel or domes;c services like room, food, laundry and cleaning. The client cohort place great pressure on maintenance and cleaning along with staff. They need a caring embrace (metaphoric) in an ad hoc way, but not on a schedule. Specifically, we have several concerns – firstly, the status of people living in their chosen residence defined are ‘homeless’. Secondly the model of care and accommoda;on that u4lises a congregate living scale to deliver an efficient affordable worthwhile care service is superior and appropriate, and finally, the cost to our society must be considered - if it is appropriate for your mother or my mother to go to a communal or congregate age care home why is it not accepted as op;mal for some people living with disability … or if we consider our childcare system funded to world class why is a similar approach not being pursued for those living with disability and choosing to live in Level 3 Supported Accommoda;on.
Homeless Defini4on
The defini;on of the status of people living in Level 3 supported accommoda;on as homeless is en;rely wrong as the majority of residents seek out Level 3 accommoda;on as suitable for their long-term needs. Dis4nc4on from Transi4onal Housing: The interna;onally accepted defini;on of homelessness, as outlined by authori;es such as the United Na;ons and the US Department of Housing and Urban Development involves, … lacking a fixed, regular, and adequate night-;me residence. However, the defini;on includes transi;onal housing but further states, … is specifically designed to provide temporary shelter and support, with ;me limita;ons, support service requirements, goal orienta;on, and an eventual move to alternate accommoda;on. Level 3 supported accommoda;on, in contrast, offers a permanent solu;on with features like collegial support, community framework, domes;c support, medica;on assistance, and organiza;onal support. Clients of Level 3 Supported Accommoda;on are not homeless people and should not be recorded as such. They choose to live in Level 3.
Communal Living vs. Community Isola4on
We believe that the communal living model has intrinsic value, promo;ng social engagement and shared resources. Smaller group homes and single living units can be preferable for some people however many living with psycho-social disability have lost their family support network. The isolated group home fails to recognize the individual’s desire for a community framework which plays a crucial role in addressing socializa;on factors.
Level 3 Accommoda4on Smaller Group Home
Smaller social groups within the home Difficult to match cohabitants allow social variety Shared resources and expenses bridge the Extremely expensive affordability gap While not always sui;ng some people, Social Isola4on communal living allows social interac;on when sought. Many have lost their family support network Built in flexibility Rigid ;metables or rou;nes Generally located within access to services Generally located in affordable remote loca;ons
Group Service Delivery V Individual Focus
Australia has taken the group approach to delivering age care and childcare. Both recognise the importance of an acceptable building standard. Both systems subsidise and monitor building standards through their accredita;on. Like Age Care and Childcare Level 3 Accommoda;on is not just the building. It is the Management of the Building in concert with the People. For example:
Industry
Building or Accommoda4on Problem Building / People management component
Childcare
Building access problem recogni;on Door handle height / lockable safety zones / vehicle onsite movement along with sufficient staff, processes, procedures and training
Age Care
Emergency problem recogni;on Call buSons in the bathroom and at the bedside wired to nurse sta;on and sufficient staff, processes, procedures and training to aSend.
Level 3 Accommoda4on
Domes;c cleaning problem Inflated domes;c hours due to the need to give the typical client counselling support as a rou;ne
When it comes to a building to accommodate physically disable people, building design and staffing are created and funded appropriate to the need. Physical disability is recognised and catered for through building design and capital investment and ongoing subsidy for affordability. Cost to the Queensland Taxpayer. A final comment on equity. We as a group of average Queenslanders commit to fairness when it comes to the distribu4on of wealth, resources and the living amenity in Queensland. Each of us are responsible for who we are and how we live. As a result of the choices we have made, our efforts and commitment to our values but also … the lo&ery of life …
Some of us would prefer not to live sharing with others, not to have to live regionally or an hour from work by train … but that is just the way it is. Supported Accommoda;on Level 3 is a high quality humanitarian accommoda4on and care model that through compe44on and our ‘free market’ delivers a dynamically evolving residence to people who otherwise could be at the mercy of well meaning chari;es that pay themselves first and broadcast their effort louder than their deed. In summary, we advocate for the preserva4on of the communal living model within Level 3 supported accommoda;on and the agility of Private and Free Enterprise to deliver it. We humbly ask the Community Support and Services CommiSee to recommend our Government that funding be appropriated to create sustainability and improve the accommoda4on supply at a frac4on of the cost of delivering the service through government, the Chari4es; through the acquisi;on of hotels or the expansion of hospital beds.