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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 01 Hansard (Wednesday, 11 February 2004) . . Page.. 185 ..

So I am putting this in the Assembly’s hands. There will be a full consultation process, following all of the requirements of the land act, and on top of that the advice of the Planning and Land Authority, because I will be determining the application myself—a statutory requirement. I will provide members with all of the documentation, and I will put a proposal to this place and seek your endorsement, or otherwise, for the proposal. Then I will determine the application.

Let me make it quite clear: calling in does not mean approving it; calling in means I choose to determine it. I have all the options that the Planning and Land Authority has: to approve the application, to approve it with conditions or to reject the application. Under the act the minister becomes the decision maker. Calling in does not mean automatically approving it; it means taking the decision myself. It is not simply taking the decision and approving it, which is what seems to be the perception. That is the process I have outlined in my amendment.

I think it is warranted and in the public interest that a decision on whether drug rehabilitation beds are established at Fadden is made in a timely way. I would anticipate, based on the advice I have received from the ACT Planning and Land Authority, that a resolution could be moved in the May or June sittings at the end of the process. Then I will be able to determine the application before the end of the financial year.

Mr Speaker, members will have to judge for themselves, but at the end of the day I simply ask them to remember that in the past year alone we have seen a 16 per cent increase in demand for residential alcohol and drug rehabilitation places in Canberra. We need to know whether they happen at Karralika or elsewhere and we need to know in a timely way.

MR SPEAKER: The minister’s time has expired.

MR PRATT (11.45): Mr Speaker, I rise to support Mr Smyth’s motion, to support the residents of Macarthur and Fadden and to support the existing residential and non-residential rehabilitation system—those three objectives. We on this side of the chamber very much support the Karralika facility as it currently exists. We very much support the continuation of the Karralika concept of residential drug rehabilitation centres—that is, moderately sized suburban housing designed centres in generously spaced suburban areas. Karralika is, in my view, the benchmark in terms of how such centres should be accommodated comfortably but unobtrusively in suburbia. We support the building of centres of this size to take up the territory’s health needs.

Against this background, I am deeply concerned, though, that the government has clumsily and arrogantly bulldozed ahead with its expansion plan without consultation with anybody. I am talking about its actions thus far. I believe the government stands to be condemned for this behaviour. Furthermore, I believe the government stands to be condemned for its sham consultation exercise. Its withdrawal of the special regulation provision is merely a tactical retreat designed to unheroically shift the decision-making process to the Assembly.

The mighty declaration that a proposal is to be put to this place is fine. That is at least a start, and we should at least be pleased that that action by the minister has been taken.

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