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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 03 Hansard (Wednesday, 10 March 2004) . . Page.. 1018 ..

If things do not continue on the path they are on at the moment then we will do something about it, but at this stage I do not see a need to change the path that the government has put in place, simply because, on the advice I have been given and the information that I have before me, it appears that things have been handled responsibly.

MS TUCKER (5.49): As Mrs Cross has said, it good that we keep an eye on what is happening and if there is a change in the arrangements that are in place to support people affected by the fires, we all need to be clear what it is and that it is working and the community is aware of it.

I will move an amendment to Mr Stanhope’s amendment to omit the word “continue” from the second sentence. That will then read: “to properly and extensively consult with bushfire survivors and other stakeholders on their future needs”.

I also accept that there has been thorough consultation with the bushfire survivors. There were, as I understood it, 1,500 or so on the books, about 500 of which cases have now closed, leaving 1,000 still active. They have been talked to about this and included. Paragraph 2 of Mr Smyth’s motion also says: “extensively consult with bushfire survivors and other stakeholders on their future needs”. Mrs Dunne, Mr Smyth and Mrs Burke have said that there are people who feel that they are not aware of what the government is doing and feel out of the loop.

It seems logical that they may well be stakeholders who are not actually direct recipients of counselling services and so on, or that they were and the cases are closed, and so they would fit into that group of people who are no longer in contact with the recovery centre. So that is why I am moving to delete “continue” because it seems as though there may well have been potentially some failure to consult with those people, as they are expressing surprise at what is happening.

But, on the whole, I am also confident that the government is working in good faith with the community on this and am prepared to support its amendment. I believe that this motion attempts to set a date for the closure of the recovery centre, whereas Mr Stanhope’s amendment says that the government has to continue to provide the services of the recovery centre in a form that is visible and easily accessible to the clients of the centre. Now that is fine. If the government is asked by the Assembly to do that and they do that, then that has met the concerns, I would suggest, of everybody here, as well as everybody in the community, because that is basically what we are talking about. Do we have the services of the recovery centre being provided for people who need them and is that service provided in a visible and easily accessible way? I cannot see how anyone could have a problem with that.

The motion also says: “engage in a process of closure that is positive to the clients of the centre”. I think probably I would put here that it should say, “and to other stakeholders”. It seems to me that what is coming out of this debate, this conversation, is that there are other people who may well not be clients of the centre but who feel a very strong connection and involvement with the whole recovery process and I think that it is reasonable that that is the case. I think that probably includes most of us here: we feel we are stakeholders and very much affected by and engaged in the process of recovery for the whole community.

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