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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 01 Hansard (Wednesday, 11 February 2004) . . Page.. 189 ..

MR HARGREAVES: I said, Mr Speaker, that Mr Pratt has misrepresented the facts.

Ms Dunne: No, you didn’t. You said “the truth”.

MR HARGREAVES: I will say, then, that Mr Pratt has misrepresented the truth.

Mr Pratt: Point of order. Mr Speaker, we have actually asked for him to withdraw that. Can he do that first? Then he might like to proceed.

MR SPEAKER: My Hargreaves, withdraw that phrase.

MR HARGREAVES: I withdraw the fact that Mr Pratt misrepresented the truth, Mr Speaker. I do not think anybody would try to defend the initial consultation process. I would have to say that the obligation under the act was actually complied with. Have we got a problem with that? I also think that the timing of the so-called consultation was ordinary. I have no problem with saying that I was not happy with it either.

Let’s go back to a couple of issues and the need for the facility. Mr Pratt says that it is a planning issue. I would contend that the planning people say whether something may occur on a given site; they do not say something will occur. The project driver says whether somebody will or not, and that is a Health issue. It is no good trying to divert the issue from a Health one to a planning one, because you will do nothing but smoke the issue.

We have heard the people of Fadden and Macarthur say, “We are happy with Karralika the way it is, as long as you give it a lick of paint.” I fully support that. Some of the people I have spoken to are totally opposed to it and will be opposed to it as long as they live. Fine. That is their position and they are entitled to that position. Some of the other people I have spoken to are saying, “We understand that there is a need for extra places and we understand the plight of people who are voluntarily going into these facilities, but the scale is wrong.” They are saying that it is too big, that it is going from having a residential to an institutional look about it. They have probably got a point. However, we need to understand that the minister has introduced a process that gives an opportunity for those views to be expressed.

I want to correct the record in regard to my role as a member for Brindabella. When I addressed that meeting at the Tuggeranong Community Centre—I have to say that I have had more pleasant evenings in my life and I have not had coffee with so many people in my life—some people disagreed with my view, some people did not care about my view and some people did not want to hear my view. But what I undertook to do, Ms MacDonald and I have delivered on.

I undertook—and people will remember this—to ask the minister to withdraw the application, as it was current then. Delivered. The minister listened to our representations and understood the community feeling and thought, “Okay, we will go to another process.” I commend the minister for being so quick with that. That was on a Friday, facing the weekend, and action ensued instantly. I was thrilled to pieces with that.

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