Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 01 Hansard (Wednesday, 11 February 2004) . . Page.. 180 ..

The minister agreed that he would come to a public meeting on 19 February. A lot of planning had gone into making that meeting work, and I understand that that has now been changed. Apparently something more important has come up. I cannot understand what is more important than facing your community and explaining what you have actually done.

To his credit, the minister has found other days. But what he has done is disadvantage the community that is trying to get the money to cover public liability if such a big public meeting of this nature has to be held outdoors. Alternatively, they will have to find a venue big enough in Tuggeranong to hold the meeting, bearing in mind that because of loading requirements some of the 700 residents who turned up for the meeting at the club last Thursday could not get in.

Mr Speaker, it is interesting that this whole process has been done under a cloak of confidentiality. I think people have seen the quotes. When in opposition, the Chief Minister said, “We won’t have a cloak of confidentiality where things are done in darkness so that the residents are excluded, so that the community is excluded.” The cloak of confidentiality has been well and truly laid over this entire process.

Mr Speaker, I have outlined in my motion what I think should happen. Firstly, as I have said in paragraphs (1) and (2), it is quite clear to me that the community is supportive of appropriately sited drug rehabilitation facilities, both residential and non-residential. I have not heard a single complaint about Karralika. Indeed, the residents all tell me that they are supportive of Karralika in its current position, in its current configuration. They agree that the buildings need some upgrade, but they want to be part of that process. But they do not want to have, in effect, what one of them described as a 70-bed mini-hospital lumped in the middle of their suburb.

Mr Speaker, the motion goes on to condemn the Minister for Planning for his misuse of regulation 12. I think it has been used inappropriately. I do not think it was ever intended for this scale of project. (Extension of time granted.) I do not believe that regulation 12 was ever intended for developments like this. I think it was intended for discrete developments that need to provide confidential services and in reality be in confidential locations, and indeed the minister has well and truly blown the location of Karralika on this one.

Paragraph (4) of my motion calls on the minister to make available all information regarding the redevelopment so that an informed decision can be made. One of his press releases said that he will be making information available to members and the public. That is good, but let us get all of the information because until this point it has been absolutely a tooth-pulling exercise to get this information.

Paragraph (5) notes the minister’s intention to withdraw, renotify, and call in the development. I think he understands now that the community are in favour of the intention to withdraw and renotify, but certainly not the call in because they cannot trust what will happen through the process. They have no confidence.

Paragraph (6) makes quite clear that the Assembly should reject the minister’s sham consultation, given that he had already determined the outcome. The outcome is there.

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .