Page 1103 - Week 03 - Wednesday, 30 March 2011
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
MR HARGREAVES (Brindabella) (4.35): I wish to speak to the amendment, not to close the debate. This side of the house will not be supporting the amendment, essentially on two grounds. The first one is that it is disappointing that some part of the chamber would seek to introduce a little gratuitous politicking into this particular exercise, and I do not think it is particularly helpful or necessary to trot out a campaign slogan “cost-of-living increases”, which is the Liberal Party’s federal campaign slogan. That just diminishes the position of those opposite, for which I have a certain sadness.
I have to say that I was kind of hoping that we would be, at this particular time of the year, celebrating the contribution of seniors in the ACT, organisations that support our seniors and people like Chin Wong from the elder Chinese community, and not trying to use the motion for one’s own political gain. Certainly that was not my aim.
The other reason why I would want to oppose this amendment is that both 3(b) and 4 are wrong. The seniors in this town feel the effects of the affluence or otherwise of this town in much the same way as the rest of us. I do not think it is valuable to suggest that the government’s so-called policy failures have a disproportionate impact on the standard and quality of life of senior Canberrans. I do not think it is disproportionate at all, and I do not accept the word “failures”. Indeed, if Mr Seselja is talking about the gold card being a policy failure, if he is talking about the support we have for and the ongoing partnership we have with COTA as a failure, if he considers having the Ministerial Advisory Council on Ageing a failure or if he considers having the strategic plan which was done by the older community themselves and not done by the government at all as a failure, I would argue that they are not.
The supposed additional paragraph (4) calls on the government to ensure that it takes into account the impact on seniors of all of its policy decisions. Firstly, the government does that. I need to put on the record that, when I was the Minister for Ageing, in fact we did the strategic plan for older people. And the way in which we went about that was that we asked COTA and the Ministerial Advisory Council on Ageing.
I acknowledge Paul Flint in the gallery today. I would also acknowledge the work of Alan Hodges, who chaired MACA. Those folk actually conducted roundtables of older people who compiled the strategic plan for themselves. It was a people’s initiative. It was not something which government guided, let alone directed. It was done entirely by the older community themselves on the basis, as I indicated at the time, that we, the government, needed those folk to tell us what was needed. They did, and we have used that as a guiding principle in our policies going forward.
It is with sadness that I stand here to address this amendment tonight. I would rather that I did not have to do that. I cannot see why the opposition could not have been a tad more gracious.
MS BURCH (Brindabella—Minister for Disability, Housing and Community Services, Minister for Children and Young People, Minister for Ageing, Minister for Multicultural Affairs and Minister for Women) (4.39): I absolutely agree with
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video