Scott Ludlam (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Pursuant to standing order 74(5), I ask the Minister representing the Treasurer, Minister Wong, for an explanation as to why an answer was not provided to question No. 686, which is now 162 days overdue, relating to the way the ABS counts homelessness.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Finance and Deregulation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I apologise to the senator; he may have given my office notice of this, but I have not been advised and I do not have any additional information. I will undertake to see if I can find any additional information on that issue prior to tomorrow's question time.

Scott Ludlam (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the Senate take note of the answer.

I appreciate that there appears to have been a failure of communication. My office has been attempting to contact Treasury for the last two days.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Finance and Deregulation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You have to call me, my office—I am the minister representing.

Scott Ludlam (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will provide a brief background for the minister so that she is aware of where I am coming from. It has been many more than 30 days since I put these questions on the Notice Paper; in fact, it has been 162 days.

The questions I asked were time sensitive to the 2011 census, which has obviously now long been collected. The proposed changes to the way that the ABS collected the homelessness count in the 2011 census were the focus of my quite detailed set of questions. It is the responsibility of our government to ensure that the complex and urgent issues facing Australia's homeless people are adequately and sensitively addressed across all relevant portfolio holders in this government. That of course includes an accurate representation of Australian homeless people in our census.

What is of very serious concern to me and to many groups who work in this sector is the way in which the ABS decided to change the way that it counted the numbers of homeless people and its—I think—quite flawed process of consultation with the sector that it relies on to help it with the count: the advocates in the peak bodies who actually work with the people who find themselves in this situation. I had 31 questions in total, which sought to clarify exactly why the ABS changed the methodology and to clarify the nature of its consultation. Quite importantly, my questions also raised a number of issues around some very strange and concerning assumptions of the ABS about homeless people, which were reflected in the new methodology that has now been absorbed into the 2011 census. For example, I want to confirm whether or not it is true that data on homeless schoolchildren will now only be collected from six schools over one day, or whether it is true that the ABS will class all people aged over 55 and living in caravan parks as grey nomads and not count them as homeless, or whether it is true that the figure of 1,253 people experiencing primary homelessness in the Northern Territory is based on the belief that one million square miles of country can be covered by the collectors in one night—the list goes on.

I also have some serious concerns about the undercounting of homeless Aboriginal people, especially those in overcrowded households and the many, many people who sleep rough. I also have concerns at the undercounting of young people, school students and people experiencing secondary homelessness, and of course women escaping domestic violence.

It is not only the new methodology that worries me gravely but the ways in which the ABS will interpret the data it collects. While we are now looking at the collection through the rear-view mirror, the interpretation obviously is a live issue. It will of course have very serious implications for the funding and services provided to homeless people. This is all happening, quite ominously, as the state and territory governments gear up to begin negotiations for the next round of NAHA funding. We need good data. Without that the whole system will continue to be broken.

My questions provided the opportunity for the ABS and the Treasurer to assure us that the interests of the 100,000 or so people experiencing homelessness and the interests of the sector providing not only assistance and services to homeless people but data and policy advice to this government are in safe hands. The response, or lack of one, suggests otherwise. This has been extant for months, and I do not understand why a response was not forwarded.

I believe it is in the urgent interests of this parliament to know the answers to these matters. It is insulting that these answers were not provided to the parliament before the census was undertaken, and to have to wait more than five months suggests to me that there are some serious issues at play. I am not laying this responsibility at rest with Minister Wong's office. I thought it would be enough to ring the office of the portfolio minister responsible. Over a period of two days they could not be bothered to pick up the phone to let Minister Wong know that she was going to be confronted with this matter. This is the opposite of an ambush; this is an honest attempt to seek answers. It is extremely disturbing that the people who waited five months not to provide us with an answer then could not be bothered to pick up the phone to Minister Wong and left her empty-handed. I hope that the parliament can be provided with a response before we rise.

Question agreed to.