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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2003 Week 8 Hansard (20 August) . . Page.. 2980 ..

MRS CROSS (continuing):

There is a great deal of discussion about the need for older persons' units and where they should be placed. Departmental people often dictate the needs of older people in our community. Unfortunately, these dictates are designed for a certain section of the older community, but not the majority. Yes, we have to be able to provide accommodation that provides easy access to shopping, medical and community facilities for the very small percentage of people who use public transport. I think the latest figures on public transport use show around 7 per cent usage by older people.

There is a majority of the older population who are independent and would like to have aged care accommodation that is not boring set around a shopping centre or next to a bus stop. There are many who would like views, a good residential ambience and some pleasant parks for walks nearby. Of course, there is a need for high-dependency units, nursing home accommodation and the hostel-type accommodation. We are still waiting for the battle between the federal and ACT governments to end on this issue. Frankly, there are many members of the community who are just sick and tired of the arguments. They say to me when they contact me, "Why can't they just get on with the job rather than playing dirty politics?"

I think it is important that we give people a choice and give them a real life. I do support Mr Cornwell's thoughtful motion, and I also want to comment on the amendments that have been circulated by Mr Corbell and Ms Tucker. Ms Tucker kindly brought to my attention that her amendment related to Mr Corbell's amendment so I will address Mr Corbell's.

I am always open-minded about looking at amendments if they have merit, but when I look at this amendment of Mr Corbell's it seems to me to be like a self-congratulatory note and, frankly, it has very little to do with the depth of the sentiment of Mr Cornwell's motion.

If the government was in a position to prove that it was doing an outstanding job, which is what this seems to imply in some ways, then we would not have a problem and we all know there is a problem. We all know there is a serious problem for older people in this city, and I think what we tend to forget is thinking about the long term. Most of us think in the short term because we do not think we are ever going to get old, therefore we do not plan for the long term.

I am not going to support Mr Corbell's amendment because, frankly, I think it is a shallow motion. Ms Tucker's amendment relates to part 2 of Mr Corbell's amendment. If we were to vote on his points separately, I would not have a problem supporting that point because it is a fairly generic statement, but it does not really address the severity of the problem that exists now. The first part of Mr Corbell's amendment basically says there is no problem. We know there is, because we would not be getting hundreds of complaints as members in this place if that were not the case.

I have concerns that the government feels, as is expressed in this amendment, that there is no issue. There is an issue. I have had a number of senior citizens over many months come to me, appalling my office and my staff with complaints about the housing issue in the ACT, older people's residences and the availability thereof.

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