Andrew Bartlett (Queensland, Australian Democrats) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will only speak briefly on this. I had the good fortune to be part of a very brief but very informative delegation to Aceh and Jakarta around 12 months ago. It was six months after the tsunami first hit. We only spent a day in Aceh, but it was very informative.

Ruth Webber (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It was indeed.

Andrew Bartlett (Queensland, Australian Democrats) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Webber was there being informed along with me. In some of the debate and some of the coverage in the mainstream media since that time there has been a lot of criticism of the response to the tsunami and the progress of the relief efforts. I can understand that. It seems a long time ago—it is a long time ago now; it is over 18 months—and progress is slow in some areas. That is very frustrating for a lot of people. It is understandable why people would be annoyed. In some cases there are grounds for that. However, I recommend that people who want to become more informed about the specifics of the issue read this report, because it goes into the practicalities.

In my home state of Queensland, around Innisfail and elsewhere, people’s homes were badly damaged by Cyclone Larry. There was some coverage a week or two ago in Queensland papers about how there are still people in that area living under tarpaulins and unable to go back to their homes because they have not been repaired. This is in an extremely wealthy country with materials available, where it is a matter of simply rebuilding and repairing housing, and we have not managed to do it after four months or so. Compare that to Aceh. Not only were houses damaged; houses were completely gone. In some cases, the land has gone and all of the owners of the land have gone as well. It makes it incredibly difficult to even establish ownership—whose land was on which spot, where the people are that owned it—and whether they are able to rebuild on some of the land. Some of it, as I said, is just gone. In some areas it is simply not suitable for rebuilding on.

The logistical exercise of doing all of that in that area is extremely difficult. Whilst there is, in effect, enough money to do what is needed, you do need to take your time in doing it. And you have to work with the community. You cannot just rush in, slap up a whole bunch of houses, rebuild a bridge or two and then expect everybody to just get on with it. If you want to have the rebuilding work effectively and to get maximum value for that money, you do sometimes have to take time. You have to work with the community, inform the community and take opinions from the community, and that takes time as well. So, whilst in some respects the speed of response has been unsatisfactory, I do think we need to be realistic about the size of the challenge and how long it can take to rebuild after something as enormous as this.

I take this opportunity to acknowledge the very positive contribution that the Australian government has made with respect to that. It is a very valuable one. It is one that will bear fruit for a long time to come. We need to keep monitoring it. The work that the committee did in examining Australia’s response is valuable and this report is valuable for doing that. But it will take a long time. Of course, many people will literally never recover. There has been loss of complete families, in some cases. The loss of loved ones will leave a lifelong scar for many people. Obviously we still need to try and rebuild areas as much as possible. We need to make that as prompt as possible and we also need to make it as effective as possible. I think we need to be realistic about what is achievable whilst continuing the pressure to make it happen as promptly as we can.

Question agreed to.