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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 01 Hansard (Wednesday, 11 February 2004) . . Page.. 183 ..

The government will not be supporting the motions that have been put forward today in the form they are in. I have circulated an amendment, which I will move at the appropriate time. I would, however, now like to address the issues members have raised in the debate so far.

The expansion of Karralika, as I have said, is an important move forward. In relation to the issue of confidentiality, I would like to put on the record very clearly today that this was in no way subterfuge or some sneaky move on the part of the government, as it has been characterised by those opposite. Instead, it was a legitimate request put to me by the ACT department of health.

ACT Health indicated to me that they would be seeking endorsement from me, in my role as Minister for Planning, for the exercise of regulation 12 to exempt the proposed expansion of Karralika from the public notification and third party appeal requirements which would otherwise apply under the land act. I sought the advice of the planning authority on whether or not it was appropriate to exercise regulation 12. Their advice to me was that it was certainly within my discretion to exercise regulation 12 if I judged that it was in the public interest to do so. That is what I did.

This service provides important treatment, help, care and assistance to some of the most marginalised and vulnerable people in our community: people addicted to drugs and alcohol. I have never for a moment pretended, to the Fadden and Macarthur communities in particular, that it is some mystery that Karralika exists—although it is interesting to note that I have received some letters from residents in those suburbs who have said to me, “We didn’t know what that place did. We knew it was there, but we really didn’t know what it did. We had no idea.” They are outraged now they have found out. So even within that community there are at least some people who were not really aware of the role and purpose of Karralika. But I accept that most people in Fadden and Macarthur knew, and I accept that most people in Fadden and Macarthur accepted and are supportive of the facility as it currently stands.

The point I was making in the decision I took to exempt this development application from the public notification and third party appeal provisions of the land act was that it was not the type of facility that should be subject to the city-wide sort of examination that was consequent on public notification and third party appeal. That is the decision I took.

People who use Karralika are in a vulnerable state. Frequently they have transgressed and have broken the law because of the nature of their addiction, and they are entitled to go to a facility and to rehabilitate in the privacy that comes with that, knowing that its location is not widely known and not widely advertised. On that basis, I sought to exempt the development proposal.

Since then, a broad range of community concerns have been raised, and the location, the nature of services provided and the extent of services provided at Karralika have become much more known publicly than was previously the case. Given that, in discussion with my Brindabella colleagues, I have outlined a new process which I think is a fair one. I will take some time to outline that to members.

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