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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 10 Hansard (Tuesday, 24 August 2004) . . Page.. 4000 ..

Most of these issues have been addressed in a very flawed way under the current government. Today has to mark the beginning of a new day where we put aside our political differences and say that if we believe that the population is ageing at such a rate we must act now in concert with one another to meet the current unmet demand. We must never again fall into the situation where we have a crisis in aged care accommodation—not just a crisis in respect of high and acute care facilities of the sort that the Commonwealth government contributes to but also a crisis in the provision of appropriate aged care accommodation for a whole range of people in their retirement years.

We have to remember that about only 10 per cent of the population ever avails themselves of a nursing home bed. Most Australians do not die in nursing homes: most die in the home that they choose. What we need to do is create a situation where people willingly and comfortably move from one level of accommodation to another appropriate to their age. They should not be in a situation where, because of disincentives to moving, they rattle around in a great big house that used to accommodate four or five kids, with a great big garden that they cannot manage and with their asset diminishing because they cannot continue to maintain it.

They should be able to move into accommodation where they do not have to worry about maintenance and where even when a light bulb blows somebody will come and replace it for them. That is the sort of accommodation that they should be able to move into. It does not mean that they are weak and infirm. It means that people are able to make adjustments so that they can have the best quality of life—a quality of life that is not ground down by worrying about your asset depreciating around you because you cannot maintain it the way you would like to.

This is not a large report and it will not be difficult for members opposite to read. The nine recommendations are very important. They basically represent the views of people in the community who recognise the dire crisis that we are in. They recognise that something needs to be done, not tomorrow but now.

MR HARGREAVES (10.55): Mr Speaker, this report says it pretty much how it is. It gives the good news and the bad news. It recognises where people have done some work, and recognises where the work needs to be done.

I want to take issue with a couple of things that Mrs Dunne said. She said the government in fact was thwarting the process because it does not conform to their view of the world. She said that the government selectively uses the guidelines. I take umbrage at the implication that some people within the government service would use the processes to deliberately stop something. It does not happen, and Mrs Dunne should be ashamed of herself for suggesting that that would be the case.

Certainly you will find some decision-making processes that are a bit hard to fathom. Sometimes you see the application of guidelines and regulations in what appears to be a contradictory fashion. And that may very well be the case. There is some inconsistency between the treatment of the Calvary site, the Belconnen golf course site and section 87.

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