Letters to the Queanbeyan Age editor: “Seniors forgotten in federal election”

Dear Editor,

From watching, reading and listening to the media bombardment from the major parties in the lead up to the Federal election it is quite evident that they have forgotten the senior and elderly population in this country. They need to be reminded that those Australians aged over 50 years of age make up 50 per cent of the voting population!

Forgotten include those older unemployed workers who, due to rampant age discrimination, can't find a job.There are others trying to survive on part time work, or contract work, some with worn out bodies hardly existing on Newstart. Many of these, particularly older women who have raised a family are watching their superannuation being eroded away through some of the highest super fees in the western world. No government super fund here.

The last parliament has told them they now have to work until they are 67 years of age before they can get the aged pension if they are born after 1960. In coming years they will have to work until they are 70 so that the Federal Government can give tax deductions to millionaires and foreign multinational companies.

Over Christmas the Federal Government (with the help of Labor and the Greens) has a Christmas present for pensioners. Come the first of January next year the taper on part pensions becomes much steeper meaning part pensioners will receive less pension income. In some cases this is hundreds to thousands of dollars. Pensioners who have partly been living on lower interest payments from bank deposits with the present very low interests are likely to also suffer.

In addition to this the Government is taking out $1.2 billion from nursing homes which will probably mean nursing homes will do away with registered nurses and the residents, when sick, will clog our hospital emergency departments if they don't now. This transfers costs from the nursing homes, some owned by multinational corporations, to our public hospitals paid by our taxes. It will also mean ambulances will be both scarcer and the medics more overworked delivering more nursing home residents to the hospitals.

Other changes brought in by this Federal government is the new system for home nursing and, according to the "Seniors" magazine some elderly can not now afford the nursing services they were already getting. The nursing services now get paid more with about half the fees going into administration because they are top heavy. (The nurses won't get paid more).

A story from the media told how, with the Federal governments changes to nursing homes, someone with a home and $500,000 in assets can get placement in a nursing home by using their $500,000 assets to gain placement without selling their home, whereas a person who only has a home and little assets will have to sell their home to gain placement in a nursing home. (This is another example of the rich get richer and the poor remain poor.)

Letter writers to the Illawarra Mercury (John McLoad) also suggest the Federal liberal government is now setting up meals on wheels, a volunteer organisation, to be privatised. No doubt the costs of their meals for the elderly will be going up!

Nurses who attend my elderly mother in her house tell how some elderly have cold homes because they can not afford electricity.

In addition to all this the NSW state government is, through the NSW Trustee and Guardian going to make clients pay up to thousands of dollars in insurance to a Scottish insurance agency to protect the frail from their inlaws. Some of these in laws have been dealing with the financial issues of the relative for years without such cost burdens. In addition to this the organisation will be giving work to private solicitors and reneging on its responsibility to look after these people themselves, increasing costs and giving a new income stream to private solicitors.On top of that they are closing the Wollongong office and will be working out of Parramatta.I personally liaise with officers in the Wollongong office seeking assistance to help an elderly gentleman and I am not happy with this move.

With all this there is little to no word from Labor or the Greens on policies for Seniors.

Now Labor have been running a scare campaign over the Liberals privatising Medicare. This may have some merit, however Labor could simply counter such a move by saying "You privatise medicare and we will build another one".

Such a move would send the share value of the original privatised Medicare crashing as the new government organisation would have better value and be cheaper, run by the government. Thus investors would not buy into the privatised Medicare making the privatisation of Medicare a dud. In conclusion it would not be worth the effort to privatise Medicare in the first place making the only losers those executives who would have ended up with over paid remuneration who probably give donations to the major parties anyway.

It is in this environment in which the Seniors United Party of Australia was born and is now running Senate candidates to stand up for the elderly against attacks from either a Liberal National, or a Labor, or a Labor and Green Federal Government.

It will not only be seniors who will be hit by these attacks, but their communities, particularly country towns where the reliable income from seniors will diminish, removing hundreds of thousands to millions of dollars from local economies depending on how big the town is and how many seniors in the towns are receiving government payments. How many fewer businesses will be around when the elderly can not afford a coffee, or to see a film, or join the gray nomads which bring tourist dollars into communities, or to have modest home repairs carried out by local electricians, builders and plumbers?

"Jobs and growth" I hear politicians say. They have to be kidding! And what of the TPP free trade agreement? What will happen when multinationals completely rule the world.

Finally it is recognised that there is a higher proportion of older voters who have strong faith and attend church more regularly than those of younger generations. It can not be forgotten that with the resignation of former Western Australian Christian Labor senator Joe Bullock, Christians, and those of other faith need not apply for positions in the Labor party. Senator Joe Bullock resigned when Labor made it mandatory for ALL its politicians to vote for same sex marriage. He also said Safe Schools was "Terrible and focused on homosexual issues" and called for the program in schools to be immediately stopped.

Former Labor leader Mark Latham is also scathing of "Safe Schools" saying Labor leaders are sleep walking into a social disaster (or words to that effect).

We need senators from the Seniors United Party of Australia (SUPA) to keep the b......ds honest now!

- Bob Patrech, Figtree NSW

Government by fiat

It seems 2016 is the year of a revamped, new-age, democracy, with redundant, formerly democratically elected, councillors selected "to represent the community at an advisory level" (New council cherry-picked, QA, 17 June, p.30). Note it specifically states at an "advisory", rather than decision making role, which they formerly would have been authorised to perform. While not wishing to cast aspersions on the appointed administrator, no doubt amply qualified for the role, the chosen method of selection seems obscure. Having power vested in one person places an enormous responsibility on that individual.

Premier Mike Baird's decision to amalgamate councils, which overall seemed to function reasonably well, is creating angst and disruption. Arbitrary "appointment" selection of administrators generates, understandable, festering resentment among those who put themselves on trial by running the gauntlet of elector selection only to have their efforts tossed aside as of little consequence. Is this change merely for change sake? If it were, obliquely, designed to rescue the treasury it may in fact have the opposite effect, as this manner of disruptive conflictual revamp tends to be wasteful costly.

Former Palerang mayor, Peter Harrison being advised "not to comment", is ominous in a land where freedom of speech, albeit within limits, was once regarded as a right. A Model Code of Conduct reeks of a procedure manual, intended to stifle dissent or exercise of initiative, by imposing "groupthink" - reminiscent of George Orwell's, "doublethink" - thereby eschewing critical evaluation. Roll on September, 2017 when the enfranchised will speak!

- Albert M. White, Queanbeyan NSW

Parents targeted in school zones

I am writing to respond to the letter posted recently discussing parents targeted in school zones.

I realise parking around many of our schools is not sufficient at busy pickup and drop off times - this leads to two possible actions from parents: park further away and walk, or park illegally. Parking illegally threatens the safety around our schools for all children and makes it more difficult for everyone who needs to cross roads. I have on many occasions encountered unsafe conditions crossing the road near my children's school - and it is generally brought about by lack of visibility at crossing areas because some parents think it is okay to park in no parking areas.

My children attend Jerrabomberra primary where I believe council has covertly monitored drivers breaking the rules and followed appropriate courses of action also. Occasionally the police are also present at the school. From a bystander's perspective - it is clear to see that more of the parents that "break the rules with parking" are likely do so when the council are quietly monitoring than if a police car is clearly visible.

As to the 'lack of education' - we're adults - we passed our driving tests - don't tell me you don't know you aren't supposed to park next to a crossing! Look at the signs! Don't your children point out to you when you park in the wrong place? What are you teaching your children when you park illegally? Besides - I know my children's school is very proactive at trying to educate parents about parking issues around the school in their weekly newsletter. However, it doesn't seem to stop some parents from not adhering to the rules.

As to the 'amount of the fine' - I hope it is significant enough to change your behaviour in the future. Council is not targeting parents in school zones who break the law because it is generates revenue - they are targeting parents because many other parents and the school are consistently complaining about some drivers behaviour!

I'd like to thank council for their consistent focus on safety around our schools and applaud their effort to penalise the parents who aren't abiding by the road rules. Please patrol (and police) near our school frequently.

- Another concerned resident, Queanbeyan.