Page 3331 - Week 11 - Tuesday, 21 October 2014
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
The conversations that took place on the day of the Assembly and the motions that were brought forward were at times confusing for individuals to follow, and limited debate and conversation on the real issues that attendees wanted to discuss. So rather than just giving lip service, action needs to be undertaken to ensure the ongoing success of these assemblies.
These are meant as constructive thoughts on Mr Gentleman’s observations on the outcomes. I do appreciate the value of the assembly. The issues that were brought forward were motions that nobody had a chance to debate there. I do appreciate that it is difficult to have all of the action required taking place on that day. I am simply raising this as an issue, and I hope Mr Gentleman will take it on board and work with the department to see whether there can be an opportunity for further debate with the people who are members of that assembly.
The older persons assembly’s first resolution provided a recommendation on “the development of safe and accessible infrastructure for older Canberrans, including well-lit footpaths, underpasses and road crossings, installing appropriate signage and constructing appropriate paths to separate pedestrians and cyclists on shared pathways”.
The government should note that in May of this year I moved a motion in the Assembly in relation to maintenance in our older suburbs which affected quite significantly the older constituents that I have spoken to. The motion noted that “this makes access for many residents, especially older Canberrans, difficult and dangerous and is preventing many from using walking as an exercise to keep fit and agile”. This motion was rejected, and in fact amended by the government, with Mr Rattenbury commenting:
What Mr Doszpot may not know is that there is an extensive inspection program for paths based on the greatest risk areas having the highest priority. I think he would agree that this is a sensible approach to managing a community asset rather than, for example, deciding where upgrades should occur based on particular Assembly motions that may come up from time to time.
For Mr Gentleman’s benefit, and for Mr Rattenbury’s benefit, I would like to highlight that I do agree with sensible plans when they are in place, but unfortunately there has to be some prioritisation so that the issues that are affecting people at the time are addressed on a more urgent basis. I thought the motion that we raised was one that should have been accepted, having regard to its input into ensuring that elderly people’s issues are considered on a timely basis.
Let us hope that the government takes heed this time and listens to what the community and some of our most vulnerable constituents are asking for. Like the individuals that attended, and the ageing community as a whole, I look on with interest to see these recommendations implemented in a timely and efficient manner.
MR RATTENBURY (Molonglo—Minister for Territory and Municipal Services, Minister for Corrective Services, Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs and Minister for Sport and Recreation) (10.28): I would like to thank Mr Gentleman for the update on the older persons assembly. It was a very interesting day.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video