Bushfire Appeal Fund
Page: 4705
Mr STONER (Oxley) [11.45 a.m.]: I move:
(1) welcomes the $10,000 grant and establishment of the bushfire appeal, now over $7 million, for the victims of the Christmas 2001 bushfires;
(2) recalls the bushfires on 30 October 2001 at Toms Gully near Kempsey; and
(3) calls on the Government to give the victims of that fire the same access to assistance as the victims of the Christmas bushfires.
This debate concerns the tragic losses suffered during the 2001-02 bushfires season by many citizens in New South Wales and the different treatment afforded to those fire victims by the State Labor Government because of an arbitrary cut-off date. In the latter half of 2001 the Mid North Coast of New South Wales suffered a serious drought. By October of that year the country, especially the Macleay district, was tinder dry. Serious bushfires broke out in October, firstly near Kundabung, which is just south of Kempsey, and then on 31 October near Willawarrin in an area known as Toms Gully to the west of Kempsey. Two houses were destroyed in the Kundabung fire and five houses were destroyed in the Toms Gully fire, as well as fencing, sheds, machinery, stock and pasture. I drew the attention of the House to those devastating bushfires on 7 November 2001 and sought assistance from the Government for the victims.
The Toms Gully fire, which was particularly devastating and which emanated from land owned by an Aboriginal group, was the result of a deliberately lit fire that had been started by a group of women during a total fire ban. That finding was made by a coronial inquest at the Kempsey Local Court on 26 February 2002. The land at 404 Toms Gully Road was covered by tinder dry grass up to two metres high and had long been a concern to neighbours, including Mr and Mrs G. Ruhr, who lost almost $90,000 worth of fencing, fodder, fertiliser, machinery and a shed. Mr and Mrs Ruhr had offered to slash the property or to put cattle on it to keep the grass down. However, that offer was not taken up by Wundawyn Gungyu Barrugin Incorporated. Sadly, the Ruhrs' insurance cover paid them only $6,000, which has left them substantially out of pocket.
Other neighbouring property owners were similarly adversely affected. Michael Patmore lost all his fences, stockyards, chicken coop, water tanks and some cattle at an estimated cost of more than $130,000. In his case also, the amount of insurance was nowhere near the loss. Fae and Neil Rootes lost a shed, tractor, tools and stockyards. Tony and Sharon McFarlane lost their house, sheds, furniture and personal effects. They and their two children have been forced to live in a converted bus. Kevin Unger lost cars, tools, machinery, fences, plantation trees, a garage and a water tank, making a total loss of $100,000. His insurance payment represented only a small fraction of that amount. Wayne Young, a furniture maker, lost his truck and all his valuable material, and therefore his business. Unfortunately, Wayne had not been able to obtain reasonable insurance cover for his assets. Other victims of this ruinous bushfire included Wendy Miskin, who lost all her possessions, and Graham Delforce, who lost several buildings on his property.
On 7 November I referred in this House to those fires and to their impact. I sought assistance from the State Government for victims of the fires. I even suggested that a bushfire appeal be established, a fact subsequently acknowledged in a letter written to me by the Deputy Premier. This devastating bushfire and the one that occurred prior to it in the Kundabung area proved to be only the start of a particularly bad bushfire season in New South Wales. In the following months there were similarly disastrous fires in the Blue Mountains, Sydney, the South Coast and Shoalhaven area, and many other parts of the State. Many more homes were lost in those areas, most of which are considerably more densely populated. Hence media coverage and public awareness of those areas were much greater than was the case with the fires around Kempsey.
In January, in the midst of the media attention on the bushfires, the Premier announced that a bushfire appeal would be established, perhaps following up on my earlier suggestion. The Government kicked off the fund with $1 million of taxpayers' money. The fund went on to be a huge success, with generous donations from members of the public and businesses, raising over $10 million in total. On 9 January I wrote to the Minister for Emergency Services seeking that the Kempsey bushfire victims be included in the appeal as I was concerned that the appeal funds would be directed only to victims in the Sydney and South Coast areas. I subsequently received a reply from the Minister which stated:
I recognise that a number of residents throughout the State suffered losses immediately prior to Christmas and it is my view that in particular cases of hardship these people should register for assistance from the 2001-02 Bushfire Appeal Fund.
The Minister for Emergency Services seemed to agree with me that the Kempsey bushfire victims should be given access to the Bushfire Appeal Fund. I wrote also to the Minister for Agriculture, who advised me of the availability of low-interest loans, and fodder and livestock transport subsidies under the natural disaster relief arrangements. Unfortunately, those measures are of little help to people who have been financially ruined. I also wrote to the Minister for Community Services, who was administering the appeal fund. Her reply dashed the hopes of my constituents to be treated in the same way as bushfire victims in other parts of the State. I quote from her reply dated 18 March 2002, which stated:
The public has donated to the Christmas 2001 bushfire appeals specifically set up to assist people affected by the bushfires which occurred between 1 December 2001 and 16 January 2002. Accordingly, funds from this appeal are being allocated to those who have suffered as a direct result of these bushfires. As with victims of any disaster, I sympathise with the plight of Mr and Mrs Rootes and those other constituents referred to. However, it is neither appropriate nor fair to the public that Christmas 2001 bushfire funds be given to victims of fires which fall outside the appeal's eligibility criteria.
Neither appropriate nor fair? What a lot of bulldust! Nothing could be more appropriate or fairer than to give to fire victims who were devastated by a fire during the same bushfire season for which the fund was set up access to public appeal funds. We are talking about a difference of one month and one day, that is, between 31 October and 1 December. I am certain that those who donated to the appeal, including those from the mid North Coast, would wholeheartedly support fair and equitable treatment to deserving victims of the same season's bushfires.
Did the Labor Government ever ask those who donated to the appeal whether they would mind including a handful of needy people from the Kempsey area? Of course not! It just arrogantly and arbitrarily applied a cut-off date of 1 December, which resulted in all the money going to victims of the Sydney and South Coast fires, which, as I said earlier, was where the media attention and all the potential for kudos were focused. What makes this arrogant refusal of the claims of the Kempsey fire victims even more unjust is the fact that, because the appeal was so successful, the Government ran out of Sydney and South Coast victims to give money to.
The Government opened up the fund to groups and organisations that had some connection to the fires. Whilst there were many deserving community groups, including the scouts and girl guides, that received payments, which averaged $7,153, others such as the Friends of the Western Buddhist Order and Culture Lab International somehow also got money from the appeal. In all, 1,027 payments were made, including payments to 761 households. Surely the inclusion of an extra half a dozen or so would have made little difference to the average payment to households, which was $8,356.
Another point needs to be made on the issue of fairness and equity. The Oxley electorate, which included the Kempsey district, has the lowest family income level of any electorate in New South Wales and the second highest level of employment. We could not find more deserving claimants than the victims of the last year's Kempsey bushfires. Most of them are on low incomes and some have invested all their efforts and savings into their properties. Those people are now in the midst of one of the worst droughts ever experienced in the region, yet Labor, the so-called social justice party, has drawn an arbitrary line in the sand and said to those needy people, "Tough luck, you do not meet our criteria."
I acknowledge the help that the Department of Community Services offered the people of Toms Gully and Kundabung. In all $47,000 was paid to the victims and other support was given. Local welfare agencies, including the Salvation Army, Christian outreach centres, Global Care and other church groups were of great support to those people. I also acknowledge the huge efforts of the local Rural Fire Service brigades in stopping one of the most fierce and dangerous fires ever seen in the area. Notice of this motion was given to the House on 28 February this year when there was a chance that my constituents would gain access to the appeal fund.
Because the Labor Government has repeatedly suspended standing orders to shelve private members' business, the motion has now become academic and appeal funds have now been fully distributed. However, it is important that the motion be debated because it is about a fundamental principle of fairness and equity. It is about even-handed treatment of country people compared with city people. I urge all honourable members with a conscience, including Government members, to vote in favour of the motion. However, I suspect that Sydney Labor will again demonstrate its arrogance by voting as a block against the motion.
Mr GAUDRY (Newcastle—Parliamentary Secretary) [11.55 a.m.]: All victims of the Kempsey bushfires with the exception of the Toms Gully bushfire, which occurred between 30 October and 7 November, were eligible for assistance from the Christmas 2001 Bushfire Appeal Fund. The Christmas 2001 Bushfire Appeal Committee sought advice from emergency services specialists and, as a result, determined that victims of bushfires that occurred between 1 December and 16 January 2002 would be eligible to apply for assistance from the appeal. The Toms Gully victims have received significant assistance through the Government's Disaster Relief Fund. All have been assessed and more than $43,000 has been paid to the victims. One remaining applicant is obtaining final quotes for structural repairs and, as soon as that is received, the case will be finalised.
It is my understanding that all victims have now received the assistance they required. If that is not the case I urge those victims to come forward so that the Department of Community Services can assess their remaining needs and arrange appropriate assistance. Victims of the Christmas 2001 bushfires on the North Coast have received more than $437,000 from the Christmas 2001 Bushfire Appeal Fund. That has been distributed to 28 households, seven small businesses and 15 primary producers on the North Coast. The New South Wales Government launched the 2001 Christmas Bushfire Appeal Fund on 26 December 2001 to seek donations to assist victims of bushfires over the Christmas period. The Christmas 2001 Bushfire Appeal Committee, which was set up to distribute appeal funds, determined that funds be distributed to victims who sustained losses as a direct result of the Christmas bushfires.
While the committee was sympathetic to the plight of victims of the Toms Gully bushfire, it was neither appropriate nor fair to the public that funds be given to victims of fires which fell outside those dates as fund donors were specifically called upon to assist the Christmas bushfire victims. It is important to recall that that committee has broad membership—the Commonwealth, State and local governments, industry associates and major charities including the Red Cross, the Salvation Army, Anglicare, the St Vincent de Paul Society and Mission Australia. Nevertheless, I reiterate that should victims of the Toms Gully fires have any remaining need for help, they should come forward so that their needs can be assessed and appropriate assistance can be arranged.
Mr GEORGE (Lismore) [11.59 a.m.]: I support the motion moved by the honourable member for Kempsey, which in part asks the House to recall the bushfires on 30 October 2001 at Toms Gully near Kempsey. Earlier in the debate the honourable member for Oxley reminded the House that those people are deserving of support. The families lost their homes and possessions to the wrong fire. It is ironic that this House is debating this motion today, given that yesterday we were calling for assistance for the people affected by the current drought. As we know, funding is not available for people affected by drought until their area has been declared to be drought affected for six months.
It seems that the Government declares disasters by calendar months. Sadly, such disasters, whether they be a bushfire, a drought or a flood, do not operate on calendar months or particular days. The people affected by the Toms Gully bushfire are calling for whatever assistance was extended to the people affected by the bushfires of last December and January, and that is the basis of the motion. The people of Toms Gully simply want to be afforded the same assistance that was afforded to their Sydney counterparts. Sydney-centric Labor has again ignored the requests of people in country and regional areas such as Toms Gully, simply because they did not have a bushfire during a certain period. As I said, the people of Toms Gully have lost their homes to the wrong bushfire. Because the disaster fell outside the State Government bushfire appeal period, they will not receive any support. I am pleased to support the honourable member for Oxley in his fight to seek assistance for the people of Toms Gully, near Kempsey, in the electorate of Oxley.
Mr STONER (Oxley) [12.01 p.m.], in reply: I thank the honourable member for Newcastle and the honourable member for Lismore for their contributions to the debate. This motion concerns a fundamental principle of equity and arose from a concern I have for my constituents. I have no doubt that the people of Toms Gully are, and continue to be, in great need of assistance. I acknowledge the assistance that has been provided to them by government and welfare agencies. However, it is a principle of equity that one group of citizens in this State gain additional assistance by way of appeal funds, yet another group of people elsewhere in the State are denied access to those additional funds.
The honourable member for Newcastle said that all Kempsey bushfire victims qualified for assistance from the bushfire appeal fund, except those affected by the Toms Gully and Kundabung bushfires of last October. However, I emphasise that those people were the victims in need; they were the ones who lost their homes. During that bushfire season, no-one was out of pocket to the extent of the Toms Gully and Kundabung bushfire victims, some of whom suffered losses of more than $100,000. It is only the Toms Gully and Kundabung bushfire victims who need the additional assistance. The honourable member's argument is therefore irrelevant.
The honourable member for Newcastle also spoke about the assistance offered to people on the mid North Coast by the Department of Community Services and NSW Agriculture via the natural disaster relief arrangements. I acknowledge that assistance, but I emphasise that it was available to all people affected by the bushfires that occurred during the 2001-02 bushfire season. However, some people received additional assistance through the appeal funds and some did not. Sadly, the people of Toms Gully and Kundabung are not entitled to the assistance afforded to other people in the State, simply on the basis of an arbitrary cut-off date of 1 December.
Essentially, the Government is saying, "Those people can have some money from the appeal fund, but these people cannot." It is as simple as that. The basis for that response is simply a date that someone seemingly plucked out of the air, a date that falls somewhere in the middle of the 2001-02 bushfire season. The decision has not been made on the basis of need or equity. Presumably, a bureaucrat has said that anyone affected by bushfires before 1 December is not entitled to additional assistance.
I have argued that the people of Kempsey are probably the most needy fire victims of all. I challenge members of the Government to visit Tom and Sharon McFarlane in Kempsey and look at the bus they are living in. I challenge them to talk to Mr and Mrs Ruhr and look at the devastation caused to their property. Mr and Mrs Ruhr had spent a substantial amount of money on improvements to their property following the devastating floods that ravaged the mid North Coast in March last year. They had to buy fertiliser, food, produce and supplies after the floods ruined their pastures. All of that was destroyed in the bushfires, and these people are absolutely devastated. That is why I have written to three Ministers, that is why I have raised the issue in this House time and again, and that is why the motion was placed on the notice paper on 28 February. I urge the Government to show some heart by extending the bushfire appeal period.
Question—That the motion be agreed to—put.
The House divided.
Ayes, 35
Mr Armstrong
Mr Barr
Mr Collins
Mr Cull
Mr Debnam
Mr George
Mr Glachan
Mr Hartcher
Mr Hazzard
Ms Hodgkinson
Mrs Hopwood
Mr Humpherson | Dr Kernohan
Mr Kerr
Mr McGrane
Mr Merton
Ms Moore
Mr O'Farrell
Mr Oakeshott
Mr D. L. Page
Mr Piccoli
Mr Richardson
Mr Rozzoli
Ms Seaton | Mrs Skinner
Mr Slack-Smith
Mr Souris
Mr Stoner
Mr Tink
Mr Torbay
Mr J. H. Turner
Mr R. W. Turner
Mr Webb
Tellers,
Mr Fraser
Mr R. H. L. Smith |
Noes, 48
Ms Allan
Mr Amery
Ms Andrews
Mr Aquilina
Mr Ashton
Mr Bartlett
Ms Beamer
Mr Black
Mr Brown
Miss Burton
Mr Campbell
Mr Collier
Mr Debus
Mr Face
Mr Gaudry
Mr Gibson
Mr Greene | Mrs Grusovin
Mr Hickey
Mr Hunter
Mr Iemma
Mr Knowles
Mrs Lo Po'
Mr Lynch
Mr Martin
Mr McBride
Mr McManus
Ms Meagher
Ms Megarrity
Mr Mills
Mr Newell
Ms Nori
Mr Orkopoulos
Mr E. T. Page | Mrs Perry
Mr Price
Dr Refshauge
Ms Saliba
Mr W. D. Smith
Mr Stewart
Mr Tripodi
Mr Watkins
Mr West
Mr Whelan
Mr Woods
Mr Yeadon
Tellers,
Mr Anderson
Mr Thompson |
Pairs
Mr Brogden | Ms Harrison |
| Mr Maguire | Mr Markham
|
Question resolved in the negative.
Motion negatived.