Page 1628 - Week 06 - Thursday, 13 August 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MR CORNWELL: Madam Speaker, if everybody would sit down, may I say that I do have an arrangement with the Attorney-General on this matter and my future comments will not include addresses.
Mr Connolly: Good.
MR CORNWELL: May we get on with the debate? The first example was in the suburb of Monash, as I said, and I am afraid that the residents found out about the establishment of this supported accommodation program by accident. Indeed, as stated in a question Mr Kaine asked on 12 December 1991, when they asked about consultation they were told that because it was not required by law no consultation would take place.
The second example is the fairly notorious Club Med in Fraser. That is the one with the swimming pool, the reverse cycle air-conditioning system, and the in-ground sprinkler system. I cannot express the problems more succinctly, more sympathetically or, indeed, more sensibly than to quote from a letter from a neighbour. I am obliged, Madam Speaker, not to identify the lady concerned because that may identify the address as well. I simply say that she wrote to Mrs Carnell, my colleague, on this matter. She was awarded the Order of Australia for services to women's affairs; so she cannot be regarded as an opponent of this supported accommodation program. I quote from the letter:
I am a neighbour of ... a property recently allocated by the Housing Trust for the purposes of Supportive Accommodation. It has become evident during the course of our negotiations with the Trust, there is a need for a reappraisal of the role they undertake in the provision of these facilities. The manner in which this property was purchased, the delays in the execution of the administrative actions and the inadequate public consultation has resulted not only in a waste of public funds but also created a negative response from the community and social isolation for the user. The purpose for which the community facilities have been provided has been defeated. The facility has not been blended into its residential surrounds either by its appearance or by social acceptance.
The current practices have resulted in active discrimination against the people required to accept the facilities as good neighbours, destroyed the trust necessary for goodwill to be established and prejudiced their most important asset. There needs to be a careful assessment of the current practice of the confidentiality and privacy requirements to ensure both financial and social accountability is more evident.
In our neighbourhood "Neighbourhood Watch" has been negated by the security associated with the operation of the facility. We do not know who are the occupiers or who are the intruders. If the nature of the service is such that it requires such a defensive form of security, then why was it located in a residential area, or why were the neighbours not provided with the same measure of protection? I do not believe the nature of the security carried out is necessary, if the neighbours were involved in the whole process of decision
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .