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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 03 Hansard (Wednesday, 10 March 2004) . . Page.. 1019 ..

So, really, I could have amended 3 to say, “engage in a process of closure that is positive to the clients of the centre and other stakeholders”. I am not going to do that, but I am putting it on the record and asking the government to note it so that the process includes everyone who wants to be involved because the closure of the centre could well be significant to some people in terms of the whole process as other people have spoken about it.

We are also going to get a report back to the Assembly on the last sitting day of May on these arrangements and how they have been carried out. That is a very good thing in terms of accountability and keeping us in the loop, and I think the final point I would make is that I do urge the government to just look a little bit further at their consultation with the stakeholders, so that we can hopefully avoid the distress that has been spoken of today by some members here.

MRS DUNNE (5.55): I seek leave to speak again.

Leave granted.

MRS DUNNE: I move the amendment circulated in my name, which reads:

Paragraph (1), omit “in a form that is visible and easily accessible to the clients of the Centre;”, substitute “in its present form until 30 June 2004;”.

I will address all the issues before us in an attempt to move this debate forward. The bushfire recovery centre has served as a focal point for families affected by the January 2003 fires. I understand that the mandatory counselling services remain strong and even 14 months on some people are reporting to the centre to seek counselling for the first time. I appreciate that it is not a good use of public funds for the recovery centre in Lyons to operate indefinitely, however I am concerned about when is the right time to shut that centre and the process that will work around the closure of the centre in Lyons. One thing that I am particularly concerned about is the lack of additional funding for services that will be picking up referrals from that centre where it is clear that there is still outstanding support work flowing from the fires.

I have no doubt that Communities @ Work in Tuggeranong and the Woden Community Service will make every effort to support the families referred to them after the recovery centre closes, as they are working to support the families referred to them now. However I have been hearing that every community service in Canberra is already working to capacity and they are often forced to put the needs of families receiving ongoing support to one side while they deal with families in crisis. I understand that there are 12 families from Tuggeranong and eight families from the Woden area who are still receiving ongoing intensive support through the recovery centre. Now these numbers are of course well down on the work of the recovery centre in the early months after the fire but they are not insignificant in the context of the total workload of our community services.

Based on discussions with community services that refer to other community services, there is generally a wait of between two and four weeks for assistance in all but the most urgent of cases and I can only imagine that the wait for service would be longer if the Tuggeranong and Woden community services had to take on unsupported and extra work from the recovery process.

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