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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 01 Hansard (Wednesday, 11 February 2004) . . Page.. 230 ..

The minister should also note that, contrary to his answer to me yesterday in question time regarding Karralika, he said, “Karralika has been placed in a suburban setting in an attempt to enable people to adjust to a more regularised and consistent pattern of living in a suburban rather than an institutional context.” It is obvious that he is not up to speed on the facility when it was built in Fadden. As has become quite typical of this minister and some of his staffers, whenever they appear before committees—some of us have very acute hearing—they make snide comments in the background, such as, “These are stupid questions.” They do not realise we can hear it, but we do. Perhaps it indicates an attitude.

The fish usually rots from the head down. I asked Mr Corbell a question yesterday in question time. He started the answer to the question by saying, “Mrs Cross does not appear to have read the regulation.” That is patronising. He should not have done that. Do you remember, Mr Deputy Speaker, that ACT Health put forward a list of instructions last May on how estimates committees should be handled? One of them is: do not patronise the committee. Obviously the minister had not read that properly.

Mr Corbell: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker: Mrs Cross is not addressing the substance of the motion. I would ask her to adhere to relevance in the debate.

MR DEPUTY SPEAKER: I am sure Mrs Cross will do that, having been reminded.

MRS CROSS: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. In fact, this is relevant, but it is nice to know that the minister is paying attention. He answered the first part of the question by saying, “As I indicated earlier, if Mrs Cross had read the regulation, she would be aware that it refers to the provision of confidential services, not a confidential facility per se.” It is interesting that, having highlighted to the minister a number of different people, that regulation was withdrawn. Now we are given a number of other amendments by the minister on his using call-in powers after a comprehensive consultation process is in place. Why wasn’t it in place earlier? Why is it that we are now going to have a comprehensive consultation process—after having generated an enormous amount of anxiety, sleepless nights and stress? People have given up their jobs to lobby for this issue because they are concerned about the welfare of not only their homes but also the homes around them. Nobody else cared.

When Karralika was built in 1978, the area was of a rural nature. Fadden and Macarthur were not developed until five years later. So claims by the minister yesterday that this facility has always been in a suburban setting were not factual. Residential areas were built around Karralika and not the other way round. With regard to the issue of confidentiality, I pointed out earlier that the use of regulation 12 had nothing to do with the confidential nature of Karralika; it was rather to act as a cloak to allow the minister to get his will at minimal cost. I will not delve into that any further, other than to relay a story of a Fadden resident. When this resident was a student, she walked straight into Karralika and asked what services it provided. She was given a full and detailed briefing. This does not appear to me to be a facility that seeks to keep confidential the services it provides.

Finally, with regard to public consultation, the minister claims that local residents were consulted. This consultation supposedly involved 14 letters being delivered to local

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