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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 01 Hansard (Wednesday, 11 February 2004) . . Page.. 219 ..

using his or her call-in power, there is then the opportunity for the minister to re-examine that and take full responsibility for changing that development.

As I have said, I do not like that process because I do not think it is at all democratic. The minister now seems to be saying that he will use his call-in powers and then give the Assembly an opportunity to make a decision. In my view, that is equally inappropriate. I do not believe this Assembly should have the role of making a decision about a particular development, with all the detailed analysis that that would require. Are we seriously, as a parliament, going to be taking on responsibility for stipulating the number of squares of a particular development, the sustainable design criteria, the size and anything else that comes out of a development investigation? I do not want to take on that responsibility because I do not believe I have the expertise, and I do not think other people in this place have that expertise.

These decisions need to be made in the planning process, with appeal rights. They need to be taken using the processes that we, as a parliament, have set up. It appears to be a cynical exercise for the minister to say that he will use his call-in powers, but then hand the responsibility over to this Assembly. I do not think that is a useful way to progress this issue. Having said that, I reiterate that I really regret that it has come to this point.

I have made a decision which looks at the two things I care a great deal about—good planning, building trust with the community regarding planning processes, against the need to have rehabilitation services available for people suffering from substance addiction. I have come out on the side of the importance of building and maintaining trust with the community on planning issues, but it has been a very difficult decision. It is my desire to see this issue expedited as much as possible, whilst respecting the need for community involvement in the decision.

MS MacDONALD (3.58): I have been on a very steep learning curve since Karralika came to my attention. I would like to give a little bit of history of my experience since I found out about Karralika.

When the original development application went in just after Christmas, on 6 January, I understand that 14 households around or immediately adjacent to the Karralika site in Fadden and Macarthur—it sits on a hill and adjoins the two suburbs—were notified. People from Health delivered a letter to inform them of what would happen at Karralika. I am led to believe by Health that it was left on the doorstep of those people who were not there.

Ms Tucker has said that the use of the confidential facility clause in relation to the original development application was ill-advised. I agree with this. I believe that the use of that clause was not in the best interests of either the development or the residents in the area. I agreed with what Ms Tucker said about Chinese whispers. In fact, over the few weeks since it has come to my attention, I have been using this term about the Karralika issue.

Hindsight is a great teacher: if we could wind back the clock and learn from the experiences that we have had, life would be a lot easier. You do not get a handbook to tell you how to run your life. I do not know what I would have done in the minister’s

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