Page 3709 - Week 12 - Tuesday, 21 November 2006
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
because from many places the bus services will not be so convenient in terms of routes and times. All that will add to parking problems, walking and other problems, simply because the concerns of elderly people were not really factored into a lot of the changes or it was felt that the financial cuts were so important that the government could not afford to think about the amenity to the most vulnerable people in our community.
It has already been pointed out that in Canberra the car is the main form of transport and if you cannot drive it is difficult to get around. I am concerned that some elderly people who should not be driving—they may know it themselves or they may not; I am sure we have all driven with highly confident but very terrifying older drivers—will be forced to drive, endangering their lives and others’ lives, simply because they cannot see any other way of getting around.
The draft final report of a study on elder abuse for the Office for Ageing in January 2004 found that inadequate transport for elderly people was the second highest issue they faced after aged care accommodation, with poverty coming fourth. So transport is a concern to not just our poor older Canberrans but all older Canberrans. There comes a point at which some people, whether they are wealthy or poor, cannot drive, and even most wealthy people in Canberra do not employ a chauffeur.
Social inclusion relies on getting around, and the government has made commitments in a number of its documents to ensuring that older people have a variety of options for transport and parking appropriate to their physical capabilities and needs. That is in the 2006-08 strategic plan for the ACT Ministerial Advisory Council on Ageing. One of the specific key short-term ACT government priorities for the sustainable transport plan is to “investigate the transport needs of the ageing population including private, public and community-based transport”. But aren’t these just words if at the same time budget cuts reduce those services? What is the point of investigating the needs after the services have already gone?
Ms Gallagher reported on the efforts that are going into looking at transport options in the light of the needs identified in the forums conducted earlier this year and to provide recommendations to government and transport operators. While I commend this, we are having the cuts and I believe that that advice may come too late. I am also concerned that the government’s abandonment of its ACTION advisory board reduces the ability for the Council on the Ageing, for instance, which I believe had representation on that board, to have input into the decisions the government makes about public transport.
There are lots of other things about mobility and having services closer to people in their homes so that it is a realistic option for them to age in place. If they cannot put their bins out themselves or if the bus service is 15 minutes walk away, ageing in place becomes less of a possibility for our aged people. I think we would all agree that that is really a great shame—and it is not what the government says it wants and it is not what the aged community says it wants. We must make sure that what the government does matches the fine rhetoric that is used.
MS MacDONALD (Brindabella) (4.17): I also thank Mr Mulcahy for raising this important and difficult-to-resolve issue. The Stanhope Labor government recognises that we have a responsibility to ensure our services and workplaces are inclusive and to address the needs of people with different abilities, including aged citizens.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .