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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 02 Hansard (Wednesday, 3 March 2004) . . Page.. 664 ..

broadly here about trends. The simpler question of beds and aged care facilities, while vital to the interests of all Canberrans, is only one of the factors that we need to consider. Please do not misrepresent me; I am not saying that it is not an important factor as it most certainly is. And it is not simply about permanent accommodation. There is a well-identified unmet need in Canberra for convalescent accommodation, respite care and an older women’s refuge.

Another sociopolitical dimension to ageing in Australia is that we are now moving towards the post-war generation, not only the largest cohort in our population but also a generation that have a demonstrated interest in ongoing activity in their latter years and community living of greater flexibility in their way of life, so we need to ensure that there is a range of aged persons accommodation in our community. There are in Canberra a number of APUs that provide an independent setting and some more community-focused facilities, such as Abbeyfield House. Bear in mind that, while a good number of older Canberrans need community support, others will have significant financial resources behind them.

One area that has been raised with me is the lack of options for people who do not qualify for public housing support and yet are trapped by their moderate wealth in isolated houses. It seems that there is scope for some form of private community partnership in aged people’s housing development. In addition, I would like to see evidence in Canberra and across Australia of further exploration of innovative approaches to accommodation for aged persons, such as community housing models, individual support packages and a more general commitment to adaptable housing. This motion, however, is specific to the structure of aged accommodation financing and provision as it exists, but I think that it is important not only to ask for figures but also to understand the rationale.

Mrs Dunne spoke at length about the proposed development by the Little Company of Mary in south Bruce. She did not quite give the complete picture, but I am sure that she is aware that one of the problems that caused the delay there was that the goalposts definitely were shifted. It was explained to me by the Little Company of Mary that their initial estimates of independent living units were changed dramatically after they brought in a consultant to look at the situation, which meant that the consultation process had to take into account that changed goal in terms of the number of independent living units. Of course, that had other implications, including environmental implications, which were being thought through.

I am not clear on exactly how strategically the government is approaching the provision of aged care, but I was concerned when I looked at what was happening in Belconnen with the lakeshore development. It is quite vigorously opposed by the Belconnen Community Council, which sees it as a way of government raising revenue once again from the other accommodation/residential development that will occur on the site.

You have a situation where you have an aged care facility basically justifying the privatisation of public space around the lake and that, obviously, is of concern to people who have the long-term interests of Canberra at heart in this regard, Belconnen in particular. There are concerns about retaining particularly the public spaces around the waters of Canberra, which obviously will become more and more precious as the density of the population increases.

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