Page 4800 - Week 16 - Thursday, 29 November 1990
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
that the issues that have been raised by Mr Lonergan are not new; that they are issues of which the council is aware and which will be dealt with in the next series of amendments to the principal Act.
But this Bill is important, and the Government thought that it was almost of an urgent nature, given the time of year and the possibility of devastation that occurs in the south-east region, particularly on the south-west slopes, with the break-out of a bushfire. There is another point in that letter, which I want to clarify.
Mrs Grassby: So you already had the letter, but you did not take any notice of it.
MR DUBY: I received the letter a few minutes ago from my colleague behind me. The point that I want to clarify is about the lack of consultation. The statement which is in the letter and which has been put about through the media, that there has been a lack of consultation, has been made by not only Mr Lonergan but also Mr Cheney, I believe. This whole claim is absolute nonsense.
The legislation with which we are dealing today has been discussed at every meeting of the Bush Fire Council, with the exception of one - and it holds meetings on a monthly or bimonthly basis - since September 1988. We are talking about a period that is in excess of two years. This matter has been debated ad nauseam over the years. Officers of the Administration have had two meetings to discuss in detail with the council the provisions of the Bill. I have had meetings with Mr Lonergan and other people from the Bush Fire Council to explain the provisions of the Bill, and where we are going - to consult them on various issues. To say that consultation has not occurred, frankly, I think is a sham.
In September 1990 the executive committee of the council agreed with the Bill, including the concept of indemnity versus immunity. In October this year the council also agreed to the Bill, including the indemnity versus immunity controversy. This matter has been going on for so long; it amazes me that it has taken so long to get here. It is worthwhile noting that I believe that this matter about upgrading, correcting and modifying the Careless Use Of Fire Act has been around so long that it went before the previous Government's Cabinet. So this consultation has been going on for some time. I believe that is the case.
Mrs Grassby: It is not good enough to believe; you should know.
MR DUBY: I believe it is the case.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .