Mr WOOD - 2015-03-25
Last Saturday a public meeting was held at Bees Creek to discuss the proposal to turn the old ANSTI site into a transitional accommodation facility for prisoners. I believe you and your department have been doing good work in this field, but as someone who was on the ANSTI Board involved in discussions with St Vincent de Paul and remembers the debacle around the proposed secure care centre, I know change to this site is a very sensitive issue for locals.
Your CEO said at the meeting there was some community consultation in early February. Can you say who represented the community at that meeting, what was the outcome of that meeting and was any mention made about the sensitivity of the site? It appears most locals only found out about the proposal officially on 17 March or later, a few days before Saturday’s meeting. Do you think you should have consulted more thoroughly before starting work on the site?
ANSWER
Madam Speaker, there was always an intention to consult. The consultation process would have happened later this week and taken place over a number of weeks. Preparations were made for that consultation process, which included speaking to the local member, who indicated to the commissioner that she believed the locals would not be happy. She was right because she is a local member who is in touch with her constituency.
I hoped to go through a full consultation process over the next few weeks and have the same result we received when we heard reservations from the people of Nhulunbuy, as well as the reservations from Adelaide River. Where consultations went through that process we were able to encourage people to ride with us as a department; it was with their permission. We never would have gone into Bees Creek without their permission, which was a commitment I gave the member for Goyder.
The point is we have permission from both of the communities where we did this. In Adelaide River, where we eventually moved away from, the response from the community was that people were sorry to see them go. These people make a large contribution to the people of Nhulunbuy, and I have walked the walking trail from the Garma site – it is about 4.5 km – across the ridge line, which is one of the services these prisoners provided to the people of Nhulunbuy.
Ms Lawrie: They need an alcohol and rehab service.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Ms Walker: No one objected to the service; it was the location.
Mr Tollner: You do not believe in rehab deals, why would you bring in a rehab service?
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Members for Nhulunbuy and Fong Lim!
Mr ELFERINK: The starting point for the members opposite is to always be angry, negative and horrible. It is small wonder that after 11 years nothing happened under their government, other than to build the prison Mahal. I will not lower myself to that. The process would never have gone ahead without the public’s permission.
We are proud of what we are doing in the Corrections environment and of the results. Do you know what else? It is impressive to see so many prisoners making different decisions in their lives so they do not go back into the custodial system from whence they came. These are good results and we will continue to be brave and be proud of our work.
Your CEO said at the meeting there was some community consultation in early February. Can you say who represented the community at that meeting, what was the outcome of that meeting and was any mention made about the sensitivity of the site? It appears most locals only found out about the proposal officially on 17 March or later, a few days before Saturday’s meeting. Do you think you should have consulted more thoroughly before starting work on the site?
ANSWER
Madam Speaker, there was always an intention to consult. The consultation process would have happened later this week and taken place over a number of weeks. Preparations were made for that consultation process, which included speaking to the local member, who indicated to the commissioner that she believed the locals would not be happy. She was right because she is a local member who is in touch with her constituency.
I hoped to go through a full consultation process over the next few weeks and have the same result we received when we heard reservations from the people of Nhulunbuy, as well as the reservations from Adelaide River. Where consultations went through that process we were able to encourage people to ride with us as a department; it was with their permission. We never would have gone into Bees Creek without their permission, which was a commitment I gave the member for Goyder.
The point is we have permission from both of the communities where we did this. In Adelaide River, where we eventually moved away from, the response from the community was that people were sorry to see them go. These people make a large contribution to the people of Nhulunbuy, and I have walked the walking trail from the Garma site – it is about 4.5 km – across the ridge line, which is one of the services these prisoners provided to the people of Nhulunbuy.
Ms Lawrie: They need an alcohol and rehab service.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Ms Walker: No one objected to the service; it was the location.
Mr Tollner: You do not believe in rehab deals, why would you bring in a rehab service?
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Members for Nhulunbuy and Fong Lim!
Mr ELFERINK: The starting point for the members opposite is to always be angry, negative and horrible. It is small wonder that after 11 years nothing happened under their government, other than to build the prison Mahal. I will not lower myself to that. The process would never have gone ahead without the public’s permission.
We are proud of what we are doing in the Corrections environment and of the results. Do you know what else? It is impressive to see so many prisoners making different decisions in their lives so they do not go back into the custodial system from whence they came. These are good results and we will continue to be brave and be proud of our work.
Last updated: 09 Aug 2016