Supported care
THE coronavirus pandemic is having a significant impact on the way Victorian’s live and work, the impact also affects our older residents or people who live alone and who require supported care.
There may be members of our community who would normally rely on family or friends from hotspot areas for regular visits to assist with home care.
Travel to our region may not be possible due to the stay-at-home restrictions imposed on metropolitan Melbourne and Mitchell shire.
Any person in this circumstance is encouraged to contact our local home and community care program provided by councils.
HACC offers a range of home care services, including domestic assistance, meals/shopping, pharmaceutical deliveries, social support, home maintenance and transport.
General wellbeing and mental health is also supported through socialisation.
The threat to our regional communities from people travelling from hotspot areas is something we need to continue to be acutely aware of and unnecessary travel is discouraged.
We need to ensure our elderly and vulnerable citizens can access alternate supports during this time, so please reach out if you need further information for yourself or someone you know.
Tania Maxwell,
Member for Northern Victoria
Stance on Our Place
THERE are two things that I would like to report on behalf of the Residents and Ratepayers Association (RRA).
The first was hearing of the passing of long-time former member Frank Powell.
Frank had been a great source of encouragement during his time in the association and we would like to extend our condolences to his wife Fay, and the rest of the family.
Also, with all the angst in the community over Our Place, we felt as a community-based organisation, that it would be prudent to actually have a stand on this potentially divisive issue.
At our last meeting, a motion was put to vote on whether the RRA would support or not support the construction of Our Place in the Pioneer Settlement.
The vote was unanimous that we don’t support the building of Our Place within the Pioneer Settlement grounds.
Of the options presented, option two would have been our choice.
I’m sure you could understand our consternation when we learned of the 4-3 vote in favour of the building within the grounds of the Pioneer Settlement.
Why would four councillors vote for something that was clearly at odds with the mainstream sentiment of the community?
Roger Day,
Secretary
Residents and Ratepayers Association
Relevance and facts
THE Our Place issue has generated community comment through consultative and other processes.
Some comment has included incorrect and misplaced information. It has been suggested that option one is not the preferred viewpoint of the community. This is incorrect. The support for option one is evidenced by extensive consultation and stakeholder feedback.
Relevant points: The Our Place issue is about saving and ensuring the future of the settlement, not destroying it.
Times have changed since it was established. The expenditure on the Pioneer Settlement, tourist information centre and the art gallery far exceeds the rate collection from the entire Swan Hill business sector.
Present and past councillors, mayors and the business community over many years have been questioning the fairness of this situation and asking for it to be rectified/improved.
The identified solution is to bring these areas together to enable financial savings.
This is what is happening. Reports over many years have said the settlement will need to make changes to remain viable and ensure survival.
Facts: At this point, the train and the windmill will remain at the settlement. The church will not be pulled down. Spoons will remain where it is with the community preferred layout and views. Extra parking can be developed in adjacent and surrounding areas.
The Gem will be incorporated into the vista of the new development. Option one will allow development of Pental Island for further indigenous and cultural activities.
The development of the Old Wharf and indigenous cultural activities north of the bridge will only be a possibility when the bridge is finalised and other negotiation has been undertaken with other government departments.
New future accommodation development opportunities could include changes to the lodges, Spoons, the old gallery site and the car park.
The option to refuse the available funding should not be considered.
It would jeopardise future fund in opportunities, devalue all the work done by our council on behalf of the eight councils and make us look like a community that doesn’t like or want progress. Access to the settlement will be improved by signage at the highway and improvements/change to intersections.
The land near where the toilet block is at the south entrance to Swan Hill does not meet integration possibilities; is not council-owned and is leased by the racing precinct off a government department.
Hope this clears up some misconceptions and answers some questions.
Ann Young,
Beverford
Edit: This is Ann’s personal viewpoint and not that of Swan Hill Rural City Council
Push out the roadblocks
UNDER the proposed new rules, we (NSW border communities) will apparently not be permitted to shop for food or anything else in Victoria, from July 22.
This is extremely poorly devised (more likely not thought through at all) because what it means is that everyone like myself who lives in a remote NSW border community and normally shops in Victoria (almost all of us) will now have to venture far into parts of NSW that we don’t normally visit, to buy supplies.
If any of us has been exposed to COVID-19, we will then surely pass it into communities well inside NSW.
For example, in our situation, we live 5km from the border in Koraleigh, NSW and normally shop, work, school, in Swan Hill, Victoria.
We will now have to travel either 70km into NSW to Balranald, or even 176km to Deniliquin, for supplies not available (very likely) at Balranald.
This means, without a doubt, that residents of both Balranald and Deniliquin will be put at risk of infection, because border residents who normally access supplies in Victoria, and therefore could have been exposed to COVID-19 already, will now be forced into these regional NSW commercial centres that they otherwise rarely visit due to distance and expense.
What should happen, is that the restrictions/roadblocks should be placed 30km or 50km inside NSW so that NSW border communities are effectively part of Victoria for COVID purposes, and so can go about their normal activities without endangering spread of COVID19 into other regional NSW communities further into NSW; which would be a disaster with so few medical services available out here.
Name supplied.
