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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 01 Hansard (Wednesday, 11 February 2004) . . Page.. 227 ..

before members at the moment. The committee would seek comment on the call-in power. Ms Tucker asked whether I would clarify in the terms of reference exactly what the committee might do. I have said that I will consult with Mrs Dunne and ask if she would bring back a more specific and complete terms of reference tomorrow. I am sure the Assembly would give her leave to table that Assembly business, as it is not on the paper at the moment. The clerk has advised that, if we want more specific terms of reference, given that I have not had time to draft them, the best process is for Mrs Dunne as the chair of the committee to bring them back tomorrow. I warn members that that will happen and ask them to help me by giving that leave.

That is a summary of some of the comments that were given. This is an important issue. Those opposite have tried to characterise this as a health issue, that people are against Karralika and drug rehabilitation places in the ACT. That is not true. This debate focuses fairly and squarely on the process for planning that the minister has set up, on the way that he has avoided that process and how we can re-establish confidence in the community that there is a process that they can be part of that is responsive to their needs and that will deliver better outcomes for all of the community.

As several members have said, rehabilitation will work best when it has the support of the community. Anger about the facility or at the residents will not help that process. As I said earlier, the curious thing about the meeting last Thursday night is that there were at least three residents from Karralika who like it the way it is. Perhaps the government and the Karralika management need to go back to the drawing board; perhaps they need to consult more with their residents. I know that some residents were put up as being in favour of rehabilitation facilities, but clearly there are residents who are ill at ease. If we are going to make this effective for all residents in all drug rehabilitation facilities across the ACT, they have to be imminently part of the development process. If three of the current residents came to a meeting and signed the petition to say that they were unhappy, that would send a message that the government should heed, otherwise the drug rehabilitation process will not work.

I support Ms Tucker’s call for in seriatim development. When we have finished with Mrs Cross’s motion and we move to item No 4 on the notice paper, we might then move the amendment that has been circulated to members. I thank members for their support in this debate today. I think it is a fundamental debate about getting process right, about listening to the community and about working together towards a better goal. The ACT will be better for the decisions that this Assembly makes on these two motions today.

MR CORBELL (Minister for Health and Minister for Planning) I seek leave to speak again.

Leave granted.

MR CORBELL: I have listened very carefully to the debate today. On behalf of the government, I express my very serious concern at and disappointment with the direction that the majority of members have indicated today. The outcome of the decision today will mean that, as a Canberra community, millions of dollars will be committed to drug rehabilitation and will not be able to be used for a period of up to two years. Members of the Liberal Party harp inside and outside this place about making decisions and it is

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