Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 5 Hansard (11 May) . . Page.. 1444 ..

MR RUGENDYKE (continuing):

There was the 78-year-old woman with mobility problems who lives with her son who suffers from schizophrenia and has a gambling problem. The son regularly assaults his mother and often uses her pension without permission.

Then, Mr Speaker, there was the 66-year-old woman with severe arthritis which restricted her mobility and ability to care for herself. She lived with her husband who had a history of psychiatric illness and was verbally and physically aggressive towards her. She had no independent financial resources and felt that she had no option but to remain with her husband. Mr Speaker, the list goes on.

As members are aware, last year was the International Year of the Older Person, but this recognition has not stopped adverse treatment of our senior citizens. There have been a number of high-profile incidents which have highlighted the vulnerability of elder people in recent months. I refer to the brutal sexual assault of the elderly lady in Wee Waa, the scandal involving nursing home malpractice in Victoria, and in Canberra the deceitful individuals who tried to fleece an elderly couple when undertaking house repairs in Ainslie.

Mr Speaker, close to 100 people attended a forum on the issue of elder abuse in the ACT in June last year. The Domestic Violence Crisis Service and ADACAS, who organised the forum, were surprised by the number of community members who attended because the forum had been designed to cater for service providers. This confirmed their perception that there is considerable concern in our own community.

The Institute of Criminology research recommends that older people must be provided with options in which they can find safety, options which can take account of the relationships involved and empower older people rather than disempower them. An inquiry into this issue is the perfect opportunity for the Assembly to take a positive step in this direction. I commend the motion to the Assembly.

MS TUCKER (12.02): I move the amendment to this motion that has been circulated in my name. It reads as follows:

Of course, I am supportive of this inquiry. I am sure everyone is. In this Assembly we are all aware of the coalition working group and the information that has come from investigations that have been occurring in the ACT.

I am a little bit concerned about Mr Rugendyke's process. Normally, if a member of a committee is interested in having an inquiry there is just a discussion within that committee. Even if you are not a member, for example, when I saw the need for an inquiry into Aboriginal health, it is only a courtesy to speak to the committee who would be undertaking that work, first to see if it is possible and if they are willing to do that work. As I understand it, Mr Rugendyke did not give that courtesy to even his own committee.

I am also concerned because one of the reasons why this is a good thing to do, apart from courtesy, is that it then allows more people to consider what the terms of reference should be, and hopefully some discussion with community stakeholders would be part of

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .