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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2003 Week 2 Hansard (5 March) . . Page.. 586 ..

MS TUCKER (continuing):

work needs to be done. But I do not think it is possible to do the job properly if we do it immediately.

Mr Pratt also wants immediate action on mandatory bushfire prevention and safety measures programs in all schools. I am concerned, as are Mr Wood and Ms Gallagher, about also calling for that to happen immediately. According to the Minister, we do have some programs in the schools, and Mr Pratt and Mr Smyth have some anecdotal evidence about what they perceive to be the adequacy of that.

I can give anecdotal evidence and suggestions as well. I have spoken at a number of schools and, on the question of arson, I have asked young people, "Would further and more intense education on the dangers and prevention of fires have an impact on young people who may have tempted to light them?"Overwhelmingly, the young people said that would not make a difference.

That is anecdotal only, and I am not claiming it is definite evidence. My point is that this is a complex area, and I think it is very important that we give the educators the responsibility of determining what is appropriate, what is useful and what is constructive. For that reason, I think we need to take time to make sure that what we do is not counterproductive.

I think it is important that programs have the full benefit of the knowledge that will have been accumulated through the inquiries that are under way, particularly the McLeod inquiry which, according to the timeframe, is to report in June. I understand that Mr Pratt and Mr Smyth do not think that is soon enough. I understand that the government wanted June because they want to get information in time to prepare for the next bushfire season. I support the caution that has been expressed by the government rather than going ahead immediately and half cocked with something whipped up at Mr Pratt's instigation.

However much we might support the intention of Mr Pratt's motion, unfortunately it does seem to pre-empt the work that is going on. It is jumping the gun by proposing specific actions before these inquiries, and the McLeod inquiry in particular, have been given the time to look at the evidence and deliver well-considered conclusions and recommendations based on the evidence. In my view, this is not a good way to create public policy.

Mr Pratt said in his presentation that he was identifying systemic weaknesses and improving them. With respect, I think it requires more than Mr Pratt to identify systemic weaknesses. That is why I think we need to have a more thorough investigation. I think it is very important to do it right and in an integrated way rather than simply doing it now just because that, on the face of it, seems to be a good idea.

As I said, if we let the inquiries, and the McLeod inquiry in particular, do their job, we will be able to act with confidence on the findings. It is not as if we will be waiting a long time. I understand it is also intended that Mr McLeod will be consulting with the coroner's inquiry, so that could produce useful information.

I repeat: I appreciate Mr Pratt's intention in moving this motion. I look forward to working constructively with everyone in the Assembly to develop sound and positive initiatives for bushfire prevention and better preparedness.

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