Page 1084 - Week 04 - Thursday, 29 March 1990
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
moving from where they have their homes to accommodation more suited to their age. Perhaps, by way of example, you could take a person who lives in a house worth $100,000 or less, and there are still many in this situation in Canberra, even in the time of rising prices. If they want to sell that they can certainly do so, but then there is almost inevitably a gap to move into suitable accommodation, especially if that accommodation is in the older areas where they most commonly live. The price of $137,500 that Mr Collaery mentioned gives evidence of what I say. There are people out there who have a gap of $37,500 that they cannot in any circumstance meet and they face the problem then of staying in their accommodation which is no longer appropriate for them.
The problem is added to in some respect by Commonwealth Government policy in that no longer are there moneys readily available for the traditional self-help units that were once commonly built. Those are the type of units that we see, for example, in Goodwin where many people live in homes that are by now a little ancient. They are not the most modern, but they are homes where they can live on their own or with a partner and look after themselves. It is a highly desirable form of accommodation because they are close to other people of their age; they are close to the facilities of the aged persons' establishment and they like that. But these are not being built any more because there are no funds to finance them. The voluntary bodies, principally the churches, that are active in this area of aged housing do not take those on now so much. They are flat strapped, I suppose, to raise funds for the nursing home ventures or hostel accommodation they undertake. They do not have any access to money to build these self-care units. There is a quite serious problem there. It is one that I have no answer to. I do not know how it can be overcome.
That takes me to the point of the increasing interest by the private sector in retirement villages. This is a move that is to be supported. Our report was not a welfare report. We were not simply looking at the aged who lacked adequate means. We are looking at all the aged, and that includes the well-off aged. So there is no question but that retirement villages have a place in our community. But there are problems some of which I wish to explore. I have to use a name to give evidence. The Grange at Deakin is an excellent example of a retirement village, well-designed by a very reputable group and providing accommodation highly suited to the aged in our community. The first thing to note, of course, is that it is not for people who have no assets. I think the starting price there is something like $170,000, so it is for the wealthy in our community. It enables people to sell out their property or to use their superannuation and to live in more appropriate circumstances, and that is fine.
But the point I raise is: Is there an element of subsidy in the development of that and other places? The land for
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .