Page 2602 - Week 09 - Wednesday, 7 August 2013
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
associated with that facility. But it was not poor planning. The secure unit could have gone there, but I did what I am elected to do, and that is listen to stakeholders and constituents about what they wanted. They did not want a co-located facility. I listened to them and, in the end, after taking a lot of advice, I agreed with them, and that changed the project.
With respect to the costings, Mr Hanson has criticised the $11 million. The costing when it was co-located was $11 million. The government then undertook a very extensive site selection process, which was tabled—all relevant information—probably four years ago. Mr Hanson has not had a word to say about it. So he comes in here and says, “I’m not sure if Quamby is the right site. I haven’t had time to make up my views, and now the government is locked into it. So we’re just going to have to go along with it.” What a load of rubbish. That report was tabled. There were consultation processes available and open to everybody, and there was not one word from the Liberal Party.
If I go back and look at the election commitments from the Canberra Liberals, there was not one election commitment about a secure facility. This is how big a priority this is. There is no—
Mr Hanson: I thought it was going to be built.
MS GALLAGHER: You went to the last election without a commitment to a secure mental health facility. Not there; did not factor; did not raise it; did not have an idea about it; had no view about it; and now comes in and criticises. Your policy presumably in 2012 was developed about what the next four years would require should you be in government. There was no mention of a secure unit; did not care.
When I look at the way this project has developed—and it has changed over time—and I listen to the criticisms of Mr Hanson, he criticises the fact that projects are not scoped properly. He then criticises me for seeking to make sure it is scoped properly and within budget. He then criticises me for returning $11 million to the budget because it is clear it is not going to fund the project. He complains about the potential for budget overruns, and then complains when I seek to make sure that the budget is costed appropriately. He then complains about the delays regarding the reviews, yet he endorses what the reviews find. So he says, “You shouldn’t have taken all this time, it was too long. But actually no; you know what? You’re right. You shouldn’t be building a 15-bed unit; you should be building a 25 medium secure facility.”
So going on his logic, we should have just built the unit for 15 beds at the Canberra Hospital site, despite the concerns of consumers and despite the fact it would not deliver what our city needed. We have had one high secure mental health patient in the last five years. So it makes incredible sense for us to have reviewed that in line with new services that are open in New South Wales, in light of how the jail is operating and indeed how the adult mental health unit is operating.
Yes, I am guilty of taking my time to get this project right, but this project is for the next 40 to 50 years. Yes, we could have built, on that timetable, a 15-bed high secure facility at the Canberra Hospital site. But do you know what? When this facility is
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video