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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 03 Hansard (Wednesday, 10 March 2004) . . Page.. 1003 ..

It is important to emphasise, however, the comments made by the Chief Minister when presenting this report to the Assembly. He said, in part:

Mr Speaker, the ability to respond … effectively to those in need of counseling has been crucial ... We know that this will continue to be a crucial need for some time. It is particularly important that those most directly affected by the fires can face the future confidently and with the knowledge that there is still assistance for them when and if they need it.

Consideration has presently been given to the best means of meeting the ongoing needs of those affected by the bushfire following closure of the ACT recovery centre at the end of March 2004.

It is extremely pertinent to consider some of the comments made in this report. Firstly, there was an acknowledgement of the requirement for “the transition of service arrangements during 2004”; secondly, there was a clear recognition of the way people can be affected by a disaster some time after the event, possibly through triggering following a related event or when there is evidence of the emergence of family conflict and difficulties in relationships; and, thirdly, there were references to people seeking counselling two years after the Newcastle earthquake and two years after the bushfires in Sydney in 2003. Perhaps the most telling comment in this report is the following:

The residual effects of this catastrophic event should not be underestimated.

The report observes that some people may carry the effects of this disaster for many years. This report provides an interesting and important insight into the consequences of the ACT bushfire disaster, and it is in this context that I have proposed my motion.

All of us would have woken to the report in the Canberra Times of Monday, 8 March this week. If you have read it, the reasoning for my motion becomes pretty clear. The headline, in large type, says “Bushfire victims in dark”. A smaller subheading says “We haven’t been consulted: residents”. The opening paragraph states:

Canberra firestorm victims have criticised the ACT Government’s response to their plight and requested a more formal method of consultation.

I am sure members have read the article. One of the paragraphs says:

Yet without consultation the Government had announced the Recovery Centre would be closed.

That is unacceptable if that is the case. I am told that some individuals received a letter that the centre was to close, but there were no specifics about how the new arrangements would work. That is unfortunate and unacceptable. Some people may be surprised at the strength of the outcry against the imminent closure of the recovery centre. More careful consideration reveals that a real need remains for the centre to stay open for a while longer. There must come a point in time when the centre will close, but, before that happens, there must be real and meaningful consultation. It must be clearly pointed out to those who use it currently or may need to use it in the future how the new

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