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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2003 Week 8 Hansard (19 August) . . Page.. 2790 ..

MR SMYTH (continuing):

Mr Speaker, the real issues, I think, in the McLeod report are its recommendations 53 to 56. They start on about page 237. Proposed is the new independent emergency services organisation similar to Victoria's. (Extension of time granted.) Mr Speaker, to set up such a new body is to adopt a much used public service response when disaster threatens or happens. As Sir Humphrey Appleby used to say, "Wipe out the old, bring in the new: bigger and better."

That is not to say it is wrong and will fail in every case, but I think that, with this issue, we actually need to make sure we get it right. That is why there should be a debate on how the new agency will succeed where the old ACT emergency structure has failed. What ingredients are seen in the new that are not present in the old? Will it simply come down to this phoenix of a leader who is going to rise from the ashes to energise the new ESB? Will he or she have the support of the volunteer brigade association, the emergency services controllers and the UFU if they do not like the model that is imposed upon them.

Mr McLeod calls attention repeatedly to the fact that the ACT is, and must remain, a small player in the ballpark of firefighting. It will always remain quite small. He acknowledges that the area of the ACT embraces difficult firefighting country, which is true. He records the rather obvious fact that the ACT is surrounded by New South Wales, and swathes of kindred terrain and forest like that around McIntyres hut continually point directly at urban Canberra.

It could be added that there are significant urban or urbanising areas in New South Wales, most notably Queanbeyan and the rural estates surrounding the ACT, which in an operational sense are really part of the Canberra scene, and to assist which, in the past, we have responded across the border. Should McLeod's proposed new agency therefore at least have the marks the New South Wales on it, those of the brigades that we operate with most consistently and closely, or should it have those of Victoria? I am not sure the case is made for either.

Mr McLeod almost gets to this approach in the second paragraph on page 162 and then he shies away from it, almost wistfully: "The Inquiry did not pursue the feasibility of this, and the political considerations are such that it may not have great appeal."What are the political considerations and why do they not have greater appeal? Mr Speaker, surely our geography and the existing joint endeavours that we do undertake would dictate that, before the ACT government embarks on the creation of this proposed new agency, and undertakes the significant expenditures which this and the other recommendations of the McLeod report will involve, at least it ought to canvass the alternative of developing a joint structure or a structure like that of New South Wales to enhance operational cooperation over the coming years.

New South Wales has large, long-experienced and well-resourced fire services including its network of fire brigades. Those services know their job and you have to say that over the years they have managed the fire threat fairly well, in some cases. Unfortunately, there have been disasters there as well. However, regarding operational sensibilities, if we end up being more like Victoria than New South Wales, what will the impact be on our operational response?

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