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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 03 Hansard (Wednesday, 10 March 2004) . . Page.. 1023 ..

Other concerns expressed at the meeting included a lack of replanting of vegetation, the intention to replant pine trees and that the proposed fire abatement zone would be ineffective. Mr Arthur said, “The concerns are well known to the association but the government has failed to acknowledge them. The issues we raise are very much in the too hard basket.”

This is a way forward; it does offer some certainty. I acknowledge the work the government has done, but whatever it is that it has done, the message has not got out, and I would suggest to members that to report after the event is like closing the gate after the horse has bolted. I think it is very important that we get this right, otherwise we will sow the seeds of individuals’ misery into the future. I think it would not be inappropriate if, as is apparent, the government’s message has not got out, we extend it to the end of June. That is only three months. I acknowledge that, as you have said, you have contacted people and things like that but why, then, are we getting these reports that people feel they are left in the dark, that they are getting more anxious as the days progress?

The answer is that maybe the husband read the letter and the wife did not, maybe the wife got the message and the husband did not, maybe the husband and wife did not tell the kids, or maybe the kids tore the letter up. Who knows? Maybe sometimes, in the state some of these people must be in, because of what they have been through, they do not take it in. I do not know; I cannot offer an answer as to why we are getting these reports. But if we are getting these reports, then there must be concern. If there is concern, then perhaps we should take the opportunity to travel a little slower, and if we travel a little slower, then perhaps we can ameliorate some of the impacts that this must have on people into the future. That is all we are asking.

I am surprised at Mr Wood’s saying that we are attacking the recovery centre. If he had bothered to be down here for the whole debate, he would have heard me say that it is extremely important that we, as a legislature, recognise in a formal way the work done by the people who have provided the services out of the recovery centre. Much has been said and written elsewhere about the magnificent work of the people working in the recovery centre. If that is an attack on the people of the recovery centre, then Bill Wood needs to go back to school.

As I closed the speech, I said that the ACT recovery centre will be seen as a symbol of the magnificent way in which our community responded to the bushfire disaster. If that is an attack, then maybe I need to go back to school to understand what the word “magnificent” means. But what it is is a high compliment that we on this side pay to those who have done the work over the last 14 months, because I have had nothing but praise back about them.

Members, I would ask you not to support Mr Stanhope’s amendment. It is illogical. He says we will report after the event, after the centre has been closed. Unless we are certain that we will get back a message that clients are ready for the centre to close, then I think we need to hold off. As I have said, Ms Tucker has already acknowledged some failure to consult. None of us knows why some days our messages do not get out. We have all encountered that problem: press releases that have never run or messages that have been misunderstood. If there is doubt out in the community, we should make sure that we take the opportunity to fix that doubt and have a better process. I ask members not to support Mr Stanhope’s amendment.

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