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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 01 Hansard (Wednesday, 11 February 2004) . . Page.. 228 ..

extremely disappointing and hypocritical on their part to have effectively put up a process that will mean no facilitation of drug rehabilitation beds for the next two years.

Mr Smyth: That is so untrue.

MR CORBELL: I heard you in silence, Mr Smyth. I would ask you to give me the same courtesy. After all the bile, anger and mistruths that you threw at me, I ask you to hear me in silence.

Mr Smyth: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: surely he must withdraw the word “mistruths”.

MR CORBELL: After all the bile, anger and inaccuracies that you threw at me, I ask you to hear me in silence. That is the outcome that members will propagate today. I have put to members that we need a decision on whether Karralika is the best location for these facilities. The amendments that I have foreshadowed today allow us to get that decision in a timely way. I am not abrogating my responsibility. If I choose to exercise the call-in powers, I am the decision maker under the act. I am required to consider all the relevant issues in reaching a decision, and that is exactly what I would do. If Mr Smyth is accusing me of abrogating my responsibilities, I would ask him to go back and look at what Gary Humphries did in relation to the section 51 development in Manuka.

Manuka was a contentious development proposal. When Mr Humphries was planning minister he indicated that he would call it in, but do you know what he did? He took it to the Assembly for a vote. That is exactly the process I am proposing here. It was all right for the Liberals to do it when there was a difficult development application—it was a bit of a no-win situation—but it is not all right now. Again, the position taken by the Liberal Party in this matter is hypocritical.

As I have indicated in the amendments, the government is prepared to undertake a full statutory public consultation process: public notification, full provision of the relevant plans and documents, full assessment by the ACT Planning and Land Authority and a resolution in this place. This is so that elected representatives can have their say on whether they think the existing facility is reasonable. I say to members: make no mistake, some residents, regrettably, will choose to oppose any extension of this facility. They have indicated to me that they will oppose it in the AAT and in the Supreme Court. No matter the scale, no matter the size, no matter the detail, they do not support any expansion of the existing facility. What does that mean? It means that the $2 million and a bit committed by the government for this facility will not be utilised for close to two years.

The proposition I put to members meant that we would have a decision on whether Fadden was an acceptable site by June. If that was not accepted, we could have found another site. If it had been accepted, but perhaps some changes needed to be made, we could have done that and got on with it. That is what you are always asking us to do—to get on with it.

But when it becomes contentious and when it becomes a very difficult situation to find your way through, what do you do? You resort to “It has nothing to do with me” and

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