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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 01 Hansard (Wednesday, 11 February 2004) . . Page.. 217 ..

an approach such as this feeds a lot of suspicion. I think even the government would concede that the use of regulation 12 to keep the proposed redevelopment of Karralika confidential was ill-advised. Karralika itself has no interest in its activities or locations being kept confidential. Some of its clients or participants may wish to keep their participation confidential, but that is another matter.

The problem with trying to keep things confidential, especially once they are no longer confidential, is that everyone resents the fact that they are not getting the right information. So, in this case, the architects, planning and health officers all end up passing the buck, and partial information is translated, through prejudice and Chinese whispers, into something possibly much more antagonistic and disturbing than the reality would ever have been.

In the run-up to the next election one of the big lessons I would hope this government will learn from its first term in office, in the hope of earning another, is that working with the community requires real investment in open discussion. There is a temptation to get on with the job and make the changes necessary to deliver policy outcomes. But if you do not genuinely try to take the community with you, with all of its contradictory and occasionally erratic response, then you will fail.

We can see here the failure to understand that immediate neighbours are not the only people who care about what is happening in their suburbs. This has been an obvious failure in some of the fire hazard reduction work undertaken by the government. Even though, in many ways, our society is seen to isolate individuals and families, instances such as this show that there is a sense of place and belonging felt by many residents in our suburbs, and that indeed they are prepared to fight for what they value. This is something to nurture, not something to dismiss.

We could—some speakers have done this and I imagine other speakers will do it—list all the small details of inaccuracies and misdirections that have contributed to the erosion of trust that has resulted from this dismissal. Describing the proposed changes as a refurbishment rather than a redevelopment is one indicator. The introduction of three or four new buildings, an increase in bed numbers by at least 150 per cent and a failure to even point out to those neighbours who were notified what the timeframe for any response might be, are factors which are indicative of the problem.

When a member of what has become the Karralika Action Group approached ACTPLA, this person was clearly given the run-around, causing much distress. A decision seems to have been taken to try to keep a lid on the projects, which clearly has had the wrong result. This result is disappointing for the Alcohol and Drug Foundation, which runs Karralika; it is disappointing for people wishing to attend Karralika; it is disappointing for the residents of surrounding suburbs; and it is disappointing for Canberra people generally who have an interest in planning decisions which affect where they live.

Since then, staff in my office have asked unsuccessfully for information on the business case on which the Karralika redevelopment was based, and for any social or environmental impact assessment of the expansion. In the Assembly yesterday I asked the minister for any information he or the department could provide in support of the project. Although I asked that the information be tabled by the close of business yesterday, I have yet to see it. This is not good enough, although I notice that, in

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