Page 4063 - Week 13 - Thursday, 6 December 2007
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
But in the context of those under construction, planned for construction or in relation to which development approval was being sought we would almost be on a par. I accept and I acknowledge that we are not. I accept and I acknowledge that there have been at times some planning impediments—processes that were long and at times tortuous. In relation to this latest report, it is a pity that in Auditor-General’s reports there is no explanation of detail—the fact that in relation to the Kangara development, which commenced just two weeks ago on Lake Ginninderra, the development application for that particular 100-bed development and 150-bed independent living unit development was granted by ACTPLA, I think 17 months ago. The time lapse between approval of the development application—in fact the last formal step required of the ACT government and of ACT planning—and the turning of the sod took 17 months, completely outside of the control of the ACT government.
It is unfortunate that it is ACTPLA and planning and the government that are asked to bear responsibility for apparent delays. We see it again in the Auditor-General’s report, and it is unfortunate that through the Auditor-General’s report the odium falls, as expressed through Mr Mulcahy’s question, directly on ACTPLA.
The biggest single development currently underway in the ACT in relation to aged care provision is Kangara—100 beds, 150 independent living units—and the approval was given, I believe, in April last year. It has taken from then till now for the Illawarra Retirement Trust to get its development organised, perhaps to organise its finances—whatever, whatever, whatever. But there was nothing that the ACT government could have done except urge—and I did. I was in correspondence with the Illawarra Property Trust, expressing my concern at the delays having regard to demand of course within the ACT, as the second-fastest ageing population in Australia, for aged care beds.
Similarly with Calvary, the time lapse between final approval and sign-off and the turning of the sod was significant—a significant delay. What this has engendered, however, is a determination to again change the way in which we direct grant land and our approval processes. We will be far more demanding now of providers or potential providers in relation to their readiness and their preparedness to commence work and to deliver beds that are allocated. We will change and we will impose far more stringent requirements in future. I have asked David Dawes to begin the process of changing and turning on its head the sequence of approvals in relation to aged care provision. (Time expired.)
MR MULCAHY: Mr Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Chief Minister. What impact has the government’s delay in these conversions had on elderly residents being able to access care?
MR STANHOPE: The government has been rigorous in its attempts to deal with issues. There are always pressures. The population is ageing rapidly. We are attempting to catch up. I think we are doing wonderfully well. Just in the last few months—this goes to Mr Mulcahy’s question—these are the projects that have been completed: South Cross Care at Garran, 70 beds and 14 independent living units; Centrecare at Aranda, 15 supportive housing; Goodwin at Farrer, 19 assisted living
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .