Ann Corcoran (Isaacs, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Immigration) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Cheltenham RSL Village was established in Cheltenham in 1962 to provide affordable, independent living units for retired ex-service personnel and their spouses. There are 100 units in the village and currently about 90 residents. These residents are proud of the community that they have. The village is now run by Vasey RSL Care. Vasey has a number of aged care facilities across Melbourne, including three in the southern metropolitan area, that will not meet the Commonwealth government’s building certification requirements by 2008.

Vasey has decided to address this problem by combining all three of these facilities into one new facility and locating that new facility on the Cheltenham RSL Village site. The residents of the Cheltenham RSL Village learned of these plans when Vasey wrote to them on 19 January 2006 and told them they had to vacate their premises by August 2006. Vasey have set out various options the residents can choose from, and residents have been given until the end of March to make their decisions. Understandably, these residents are very upset, worried, and quite distressed. Many residents have lived in the village for a long time and have established important relationships with nearby medical services, they have made friends in the area and many have family living nearby. To tell these people to move out is extraordinary. Some residents are worried about having to pay more rent than they are at present in Cheltenham. Others are feeling pressured and distressed because of the relatively short time lines.

It is clear to me that other options need to be considered. Some residents have made the excellent point that the redevelopment could be done in two or three stages, allowing many to stay on site. Another point is that guarantees should be given to residents that they will have a place in the new facility if they want one. Time does not permit me to canvass all the issues or indeed any of them in any depth. I call on Vasey to sit back and rethink their plans. No-one is arguing that renovations and renewal should not ever happen, but careful planning and particularly lots of listening to the residents and consideration of their needs and wishes have to be paramount.

On another matter, Chelsea Heights Primary School in my electorate, like so many other schools, applied for funding last year through the Investing in Our Schools program. Their application was successful and they were told that they would get $40,000 for much needed shading of their playground. That was back in October 2005. The school is now in the position of having to get quotes for the work but having no money to complete it and no idea of when they will be able to get their shade.

I received a letter from the minister in December 2004 with a time line of when applications were to be made by schools and detailing when they were to receive their money, which was going to be May or June 2005. Clearly the time lines have moved considerably. It is now February 2006—almost the end of summer—and there is still no shade or money for Chelsea Heights. The principal of the school has been in the position of having to explain to parents why the shade sails have not been installed. I would like the minister to tell the students, the teachers and the school community at Chelsea Heights when they will have their shade. Will it be this summer, next summer or perhaps even the one after that?

Finally I want to talk about Centrelink and its complicated, confusing and at times intrusive and threatening forms and letters. For example, a constituent—I will call her ‘Ms G’—approached me recently. Her daughter has just turned 16. Ms G was moved from parenting payment to Newstart and her daughter was obliged to apply for the youth allowance. Ms G’s daughter had to fill out a 36-page application form, which included probing questions about her relationship status. This was for a 16-year-old. Ms G did her best to assist her daughter in understanding and completing this process. However, she had to make multiple trips to Centrelink offices at short notice to satisfy further questions. As a recipient of Newstart, such complications make it all the more difficult for Ms G to satisfy her job-searching responsibilities, not to mention the cost of petrol for each of these appointments.

Another letter from Centrelink crossed my desk the other day. It was written to an aged pensioner and asked her to confirm that she recently took an overseas trip. The letter goes on to talk in very general but abrupt terms about payments being cut in certain circumstances and suggesting that if the pensioner does not get into Centrelink pronto the payments may stop. It is worth just reading the letter, because it is quite extraordinary:

Centrelink has a responsibility to make sure that people are receiving their correct social security entitlement. To help ensure customers’ payments are correct we match our records with government departments including the department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs (DIMIA).

Information from DIMIA indicates you departed Australia on 14 December 2005.

Please contact us if the information provided by DIMIA is incorrect.

Centrelink payments are generally only paid outside Australia for a certain period. If you are outside Australia after this period your payment (s) may be reduced or stopped. You will be notified of any change in your payment (s) if it occurs.

Your payment will also continue to be affected by any changes that would normally have an impact on it. Your payments may stop if we cannot get in touch with you.

My constituent found this letter very threatening and offensive. Indeed, it is. I have no problem with Centrelink taking necessary steps to ensure that correct payments are being made, but this can be done in a civilised and clear manner. (Time expired)