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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 5 Hansard (11 May) . . Page.. 1445 ..

MS TUCKER (continuing):

that process. I did a bit of a ring around just to get feedback when I realised that there had not been a real committee discussion about the terms of reference and that they were not the result of some considered views other than from Mr Rugendyke's office. That is why this amendment is there. The view of the community sector was that we definitely needed to look at options for prevention in any such inquiry. I am assuming that that amendment will get support.

Mr Rugendyke has basically outlined the issues that have been presented to us all in the lobbying that has occurred from the coalition and various other people, so I do not think I will repeat it all. Obviously, elder abuse is an issue of great concern. The levels of abuse are likely to increase as the proportion of elderly people in Canberra's population increases. The pressure on services and the gaps in services do need to be urgently addressed.

The ACT government, I understand, is going to be sympathetic to this inquiry, which is great. They are obviously already working on their three-year forward plan for older people in the ACT. This will be an opportunity to broaden their work possibly or to increase their understanding of some of the issues, if they need that.

The other thing I might pick up that I do not think has been covered is the work of the Marian James Institute of Criminology. There is a need for a useful theoretical framework to concentrate on the problem as a function of broader social structural issues, such as poverty, isolation, gender, ethnicity, et cetera, rather than the focus on individuals which has predominantly guided what research there is on the issue. So I think the sorts of individual cases that Mr Rugendyke just described need to be seen in the broader context of society.

I would also like to compliment the group who have been working on this, the coalition, on the high quality of the work they have done on the topic. Obviously they have done a very good job of drawing together the research and experiences from working with all the relevant groups in the community.

I understand that Mr Wood is supportive of the idea of this inquiry going to his committee, so I am also happy to support it.

MR WOOD (12.06): Mr Speaker, the matter that Mr Rugendyke has raised is worthy of inquiry by the committee. It will undertake the task of examining all the issues most thoroughly and I am confident that in the end we will bring down a very sound report.

I have indicated to Mr Rugendyke that the practice that had been established in the Health and Community Care Committee was for colleagues to bring issues to the committee for discussion and to reach agreement there on priorities and timing. That has been the case in the past. If it did not occur on this occasion, I am sure it will in the future.

I remind all members of the Assembly that this committee, like all hard-working committees of the Assembly, now has three quite complex issues before it. We are in the fairly early stages of each of three inquiries. Two at least, and one in particular, are quite complex. So I would encourage members not to come to the committee for some little time now with any suggestions for more inquiries.

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