Page 1898 - Week 07 - Thursday, 20 August 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Ms Ellis: I didn't.
MR HUMPHRIES: Okay, someone did. Why does it not happen on every occasion, not just when you decide to confront community concern? You do not confront community concern by ignoring it or saying, "Get down, NIMBY; down". You do not do it that way. You do it by talking to people and persuading them to your point of view. People have the right to be consulted about those things.
Ms Ellis: They were.
MR HUMPHRIES: On that occasion they were; often they are not, and that is the point we are making. Those opposite seem to be saying that there is no need for consultation, that consultation is unnecessary.
Mr Connolly: No. I have tabled the consultation guidelines. I have tabled the Ombudsman reports. Read what the Ombudsman said.
MR HUMPHRIES: I am glad that Mr Connolly interjected on that point. I certainly have read what is in those guidelines and I am saying to you, Minister, and to your Government that those guidelines are not being enforced. That is the point. The guidelines talk about the maintenance of residential amenity for people living in the immediate area and the criterion that the building facade is to blend with the existing streetscape. Those things are resolved often by discussion and consultation with the local community. I do not care whether in some cases it has happened. The point is that in some cases it has not happened.
The crux of this matter is the following of the guidelines and the extent to which they are enforced and properly understood and availed of by people out in the community. Ms Szuty said in the course of the debate that secrecy and security are paramount, and I would certainly agree with that. They are very important. But you do not enhance the security of those facilities if you alienate and isolate the people who live in them from those around them. If those opposite think that that has not happened in this community, they are very sorely mistaken. It has happened. Those facilities under the SAAP program have in some cases effectively been cut out of the community because of the way in which they have been put there, and the only way of dealing with that problem is by consulting properly with the local community. It is perfectly clear from the letters we have had - and, I have no doubt, the letters the Ministers and others have had on the same subject - that there is community concern. It is not all attributable to NIMBYism. Even if it were, it can be and should be dealt with by proper consultation with those who are affected by it.
There is a need for us to reconsider the way in which this program has gone. Particularly, there is a need for us to reconsider the way in which the guidelines are enforced. I hope that the Government will take notice of this matter. It clearly is not going to be successful. The Liberal Party is certainly not anxious to see the SAAP program held up or stopped because of the way in which this proceeds. The Government ought to be put on notice that there are genuine concerns out in the community. If you think the Liberal Party cannot address and raise those matters, you will find that they come back to haunt you in other ways, either at the next election or in some other way on the part of the community. Either way, if you do not take notice of what is going on in the community, be that on your own head.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .