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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2002 Week 8 Hansard (26 June) . . Page.. 2296 ..

MR CORNWELL (continuing):

relation to growth. Mr Corbell, that simply is not true, and I believe that there may be some misunderstanding on your part.

You were correct when you said are 5,561 people here would be affected, not the 8,237 I mentioned. The 8,237 was the growth predicted by the federal government for the ACT by 2005-06. Does anybody want more evidence of a commitment to ongoing funding? I can understand why it would not go beyond 2005-06. It is very difficult to predict much beyond that. Certainly, a calculation up to that time has been made, and I believe it demonstrates a commitment.

The other point I find interesting in relation to the ACT government's attitude is that other Labor states have agreed. Western Australia, South Australia and the Northern Territory have all agreed in principle. They jumped at the chance. Others are still negotiating, with the exception of Tasmania, which has an election coming up and is therefore preoccupied with other matters.

The ACT is the only government to reject outright this very generous, just and equitable proposal. The ACT, therefore, will be the only area in Australia where self-funded retirees will be second-class beneficiaries. It is not something that I would wish to carry with me as an elected representative.

I find the attitude of this Labor government inconsistent, given the respite care, psychogeriatric and convalescent services they are providing for the aged in the budget. I commend them for those services. I also find it inconsistent with setting up an advisory council on the ageing. The Chief Minister's media release said:

... our aim [is] to create a community in which older people feel safe and valued and where services are available to meet their needs.

He went on to say:

I will encourage the Council to be forthright in providing advice to Government on older people's issues and needs.

I would suggest the first topic for the advisory council might be to examine this inequitable decision.

Finally, I find this Labor government's behaviour totally contradictory in relation to its own policy. Its older people's policy, on page 61, says:

Labor will ... review and extend if appropriate concessions available to pensioners and low income self-funded retirees from ACT Government agencies.

You cannot get more obvious than that.

I believe there is no question that this move is justified in terms of fairness and equity, as I have already mentioned. For many years we have known about the hardship suffered by people whose income is only just above pension level. Most of them are self-funded retirees. It denies them many pension concessions which the federal government has now generously decided to make available, provided the states cooperate on a 60/40 basis.

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