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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2003 Week 9 Hansard (27 August) . . Page.. 3230 ..

MRS DUNNE (continuing):

proposed development is unsuitable because of its isolation. But when you actually run the pedometer over the footpaths, it is in fact 1.5 kilometres to the nearest shop at Holt, whereas the government's proposal to build aged-care facilities down on Lake Ginninderra is 2.7 kilometres from the local shops.

So we have got one set of rules for the government, and that is okay. But if a private developer wants to come in and build high-quality developments, you are told no. The best reason that the planners have for rejecting this proposal, and I quote from a letter, is "concerns that agreement to the proposal would open the floodgate to similar proposals". Mr Speaker, dare I say that in this town, where imitation is the highest form of flattery and where there is a crying and increasing need for high-quality and flexible accommodation for aged people, we do not have that option.

You would stop someone doing it out of mere jealousy. The developers are told, "You have a high-quality proposal for aged-care people and if you get away with it somebody else may want to do it."This is the politics of envy brought to a high plane, Mr Speaker, and it should be stamped out. The planning processes need to be reflective of the increasing needs of the ACT community to have high-quality aged-care facilities and they should be made to adjust to those demands.

MR PRATT (10.57): Mr Speaker, I rise to support Mr Cornwell's motion. We are fast becoming an aged community and it is essential that governments around the country make all efforts to ensure that infrastructure is keeping pace with the growing trend of increasing numbers of aged who will be dependent on others, who will be dependent on the community.

Twinning this concern with another, I would also point out that we as a community must all lament the breaking down of the traditional family unit as the building block of society. We have to recognise that this is simply a fact of life. The family unit in more traditional times instinctively looked after their elderly for longer periods, up to that excruciating moment when it was necessary to place them in collective community care.

The mobility of society is a reality and this has placed great pressure on families and has led to an even greater need for collective community care. Like all Australian communities, we, too, in the ACT face these increasing pressures and demands. The Labor government has a responsibility to get to grips with these challenges, but I am afraid that all I can see is prevarication by our planning authorities and this Labor government.

Mr Speaker, to demonstrate the concerns expressed to me by the community, I want to talk about a particular project in Monash which is at least on the drawing board. I refer to the Christian City Church. It has been demonstrated that the government is unable to make a decision about the price of the land for this project and this is needed before any further planning and development can take place. The initiatives that have been planned for this land by the Christian City Church are worthwhile for the Canberra community and, in particular, my electorate of Brindabella.

I refer to the long drawn out saga with PALM over identified blocks of land in Monash, adjacent to the Mary MacKillop College. I believe that the Christian City Church initiatives include aged person units, community and youth infrastructure, vocational

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