Page 1657 - Week 06 - Tuesday, 3 June 2014
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
some people with mental health concerns, both in the community and those who may have had contact with the criminal justice system but for whom custodial sentences may not be appropriate. The proposed facility will contain around 25 beds and will be low to medium security. There is a clear need for this facility in the ACT, and I suspect that we will see this facility well utilised in years to come.
Before I go on to the details of the bill, I have received, as I believe other members have received, an email from the Inner South Canberra Community Council this morning that raises some issues with the bill. I am aware of the concerns of Symonston residents about planning issues arising in their area. In fact, I went for a site visit last year and discussed a range of issues with them. There are a range of views in Symonston about a range of matters and what should take place in the area. I certainly note the comments from Gary Kent this morning in his email that he sent just after 10 o’clock. He said, “Symonston is a valuable remnant of old Canberra with superb heritage and conservation values.”
What this reflects in Symonston is the increasing pressures on many of the urban fringes of Canberra and that it would be timely to do a level of strategic planning and consultation around the future of Symonston and some of the land use planning in that area. I think that the concern the residents have is that there is a bit of a piecemeal approach. They are not clear what the bigger picture is for the Symonston area. They do not see a clear plan there and they would like to be involved in that discussion. I think that is a fair enough comment. I think that that is something the government should be looking at and should be taking on board to seek to get an enhanced engagement with the residents of Symonston.
Nonetheless, when it comes to this specific site, I think we also need to reflect on the very real situation. The site we are talking about is not a heritage site in that sense. It is a site that already actually has the former Quamby facility on it. That facility will be demolished and simply replaced with a new building. I think that is the important context of the actual site we are speaking about here. It is a location that already has a building on it. That building will simply be replaced with a new building in essence. That is the essence of what this legislation does.
The bill essentially does two things: it creates a specific territory plan variation for the Symonston site to enable the facility and it reduces legal appeal and review rights for the development application for this facility. People may wonder why this facility warrants such legislation that removes important rights such as appeal rights through the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act or merit review through ACAT. I note that common law access to the Supreme Court is still available for 60 days on questions of law or procedure, whereafter access is also restricted.
However, there is significant demand for the proposed secure mental health facility and a clear need for the government to deliver the project as soon as practicable. Unfortunately, as I recounted during the debate on the project facilitation legislation, it is quite possible that this project could have been held up through various appeal processes due to people being unhappy about this type of facility being built in their area. This is what has happened to the government’s Ngunnawal bush healing farm proposal, despite the many people who would strongly benefit from the facility being built.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video