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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 01 Hansard (Tuesday, 10 February 2004) . . Page.. 34 ..

Karralika facility

MS TUCKER: My question is to the Minister for Planning and concerns the availability of information about the proposed Karralika redevelopment. Given that the broader community was not included in any consultation for the redevelopment—you are proposing that there be no proper process allowed to deal with community concerns—can you table, by close of business today, any analysis or advice that led you to take this decision, including the construction proposal relating to the redevelopment of the Karralika alcohol and drug therapeutic community’s business case from the department in 2001 and the social and environmental impact analysis that I presume you had commissioned before making the decision?

MR CORBELL: I do not think I heard all of Ms Tucker’s question. What decision?

Ms Tucker: I did not say it in a question. But if you are asking for clarification, I am talking about the proposal to increase the number of beds at Karralika.

MR CORBELL: The decision to extend the facility at Karralika was made by government in the budget cabinet. It was announced in the middle of last year. It was based on an analysis and work done by ACT Health as to the most appropriate way to expand the provision of drug rehabilitation facilities in the ACT. Given the important role that ADFACT already played and the considerable level of investment that the territory has already made in supporting the activities of ADFACT, it was decided—on that basis—that this was the most appropriate course of action.

MS TUCKER: The question was that you table that information. I am asking whether you would do that. I would like to see that advice and analysis, including the social and environmental impact, tabled. Will you table it by close of business today.

MR CORBELL: As far as I am aware, there was no social and environmental impact advice that came before the government’s budget decision. That would normally be done through the planning process, not as part of the capital works consideration by the government. Given that the proposal is consistent with the land use policy for the site, the issues we are talking about are more detailed issues around traffic, access and so on. This would normally be dealt with as part of the development application process.

In relation to the documentation to which Ms Tucker refers, I am happy to take the question on notice and find out exactly what the nature of those documents are. If they are able to be tabled in the Assembly, I will do so.

Karralika facility

MRS CROSS: My question is also directed to the Minister for Planning. The minister originally invoked regulation 12 of the Land (Planning and Environment) Regulation 1992 in regard to the Karralika drug rehabilitation centre refurbishment due to the sensitive nature of that facility. That line of action was taken and continued despite the fact that signs indicate where the Karralika facility is located, media releases from the minister’s office refer to the facility and pictures of Karralika residents in the Canberra Times suggest that the facility does not require confidentiality and is not of a discreet

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