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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2003 Week 9 Hansard (27 August) . . Page.. 3233 ..

MR CORNWELL: I shall indeed, sir, of course.

The term "self-congratulatory"has been used in respect of Mr Corbell's amendment. I can do no more, sir, than support it, because it is a most appropriate term for the amendment that the Minister for Planning and Minister for Health has moved. Frankly, nothing in your comments when moving this amendment, nothing in your defence, has justified the inaction of this government in relation to these aged-care beds, and nothing in your motion would justify faith from the people of the ACT that you are going to do something about it.

Let me just analyse what you've said in here. The first point is: "... notes that the ACT Government ... has given priority to determining applications". The second dot point is: "... has been proactive in initiating work for sites". A third point is: "... has provided $450,000 for a new pilot program". These are not initiatives; these are ideas; these are plans. There is nothing tangible in anything that you have placed in your amendment; there is nothing tangible, I would suggest to you, in what you have said. There is nothing definite at all.

I was puzzled that you also said in your speech-and I was heartened by this, I might add-that you had agreed to request the federal Minister for Ageing, Mr Andrews, to engage in and to ensure that ACT officials and Commonwealth officials engage in joint planning exercises. I was much comforted, Mr Speaker, by that because at least, with the Commonwealth involved, something might be done. If it's left to this ACT Labor government, nothing will be done.

Indeed, my doubts were confirmed in the very next sentence. After the talk about the Commonwealth and the ACT engaging, Mr Corbell then went on to say that he had asked the Land Development Agency to initiate a review. Here we are, back again to the artilleryman's defence: we're gunna do this and we're gunna do that.

I am extremely disappointed, given that we face a crisis in this city in relation to aged-care beds. We have 200 phantom beds at the moment; we have another 100 coming online. I would remind members that, for every person in a hospital rather than nursing home-type accommodation, the cost for fewer than 35 days is $968 per day. In a non-pensioner, high-care residential aged-care setting, the cost is $203.95 per day. $968 or $203.95? Source? A letter from Mr Corbell dated 4 June this year, in response to a question I raised in estimates.

How can any responsible government allow that sort of money to be wasted by accommodating nursing home-type patients in a hospital setting and then have the temerity, Mr Speaker, to jump up and whinge about the lack of funding that the Commonwealth is providing for health care in this territory? It simply is not justifiable. I would like an explanation why you continually drag the chain on these nursing home beds.

Of course, an initiative was taken, Mr Speaker-no doubt, part of the amendment moved by Mr Corbell-strangely enough, yesterday. With the debate coming up this morning, what do I hear from your radio station this morning, Mr Corbell? Approval has been given to Southern Cross Homes for an aged-care facility in Garran. I am aware this has

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