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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 03 Hansard (Wednesday, 10 March 2004) . . Page.. 1004 ..

arrangements will work and it must be clear to the community that this has been undertaken.

In the last couple of days I have spoken with several of the survivors who had lost their homes. All have said that they think the centre should remain much longer; some said that it should remain much longer than June 2004. But all agree that the centre should remain open until at least 30 June this year. All were full of praise for the centre, all were grateful for the help that they had received and all were uncertain about what the new arrangements would be.

I have spoken to Richard Arthur, the head of the Phoenix Association, who said that the recovery centre is a symbol for many people—a place where they can go to, a place where they know they can get assistance in a sure and certain way. That is what these people need. I think it is unfortunate to close it so quickly. He said that arrangements resulting from conversations with the government, when he and representatives of another group were called in about the new system, were unclear, that it wasn’t made clear to people what the new arrangements would be. He said that when the new arrangements are introduced—he accepts that they need to be introduced and that it needs to be done in a timely fashion—people need a much longer lead time to become used to the idea of the centre closing and that much more detail needs to be provided as to how the new arrangements would work.

Mr Arthur said to me this afternoon that victims of the fires and people who had lost their homes or were affected by the loss were getting more upset daily. He said that the Duffy Primary School was a case where more not fewer resources would be required. All the children in the suburb had been affected in some way. His impression was that the school may be struggling to cope and he thought that certainly more resources should go to the school. Mr Arthur also asked me to say that he appreciated that the recovery centre needed to close. All understood that, but what was required was a clearer process, a longer lead time and better communication from the government.

I don’t believe there is any question of money around the continuation of the recovery centre. The Assembly has given plenty of money to bushfire recovery activities: during 2002-03 we spent $1.1 million on the recovery centre and allocated $2 million during 2003-04. The need in our community appears to be: an ongoing requirement for a continuation of what Richard Arthur calls “a symbol of the recovery from the bushfire disaster”, the continuation of the provision of counselling services and a more effective transition to the post-recovery centre phase.

There are still a great many bushfire survivors in our community who need the continuing support of the recovery centre. As I noted a moment ago, experts, in dealing with the consequences of disasters such as the ACT experienced in January 2003, note that, for many people, issues relating to the disaster may not be properly identified or acknowledged until during the second year after the disaster. It is evident that there remain many people who continue to be adversely affected by the bushfire disaster. It is important for these people to see that the community recognises their situation and responds to it.

There are a great many others who are less dependent or who require less support but who want to be properly consulted on the future of the recovery centre as well as about

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