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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2003 Week 13 Hansard (26 November) . . Page.. 4688 ..

MR CORBELL (continuing):

We need, in developing the governance and management structures for emergency services, to be mindful of the events of the past and of the absolute necessity for each of the relevant organisations to operate within a cohesive and cooperative framework, but with sufficient freedom from external interference to be able to respond effectively in any emergency situation. That said, the government does not believe that this bill contributes in any real way to the ability of or obligations upon the various services to work together within an integrated framework. I think that this is an essential element in any successful reform of emergency services.

For this reason and for a number of other reasons which I will be outlining, the government will not be supporting this bill. Before outlining those reasons, however, I would like to thank Mr Pratt for his willingness to engage in discussions with officers of Mr Wood's department on the restructure of emergency services and to hear alternative arguments. I hope that all members will continue to show the same openness as debate on this critical review proceeds.

Members will be aware that the government proposes to engage with emergency services officers and stakeholders in a comprehensive consultation process. That has already begun. The aim of that consultation is to develop and implement an emergency services authority in line with the principles enunciated in the recommendations of the McLeod report. Members will be aware that the new Commissioner for Emergency Services-Major General (retired) Peter Dunn-has now been appointed. He will be vital to the consultation process for the development of the new authority.

Through this consultation process, the government proposes to develop a model for an authority that: strengthens the cooperation between the ambulance, bushfire brigade, emergency services, and urban fire brigade elements of our emergency services framework; places the operational and day-to-day management responsibilities of the authority at arms length from the public service; draws the several emergency services entities together under one management banner, with the aims of improving the efficiency and responsiveness of all of them and of enabling them to make better use of their resources; facilitates a joint approach to planning for and responding to emergency events; and provides the territory with a framework that serves as a leading example of integrated emergency services management.

I understand that, in developing this legislation, Mr Pratt has consulted with a number of stakeholders. However, it is clear that a number of significant issues remain unresolved at this point. The government is pursuing the best possible understanding of those issues by inviting submissions on appropriate structures, which is already under way, and by arranging detailed discussions with key agencies and interest groups. That process, as I have indicated, has begun and will continue until legislation is presented in this Assembly.

In opposing this bill, the government believes that the bill does not address the issues that need to be addressed prior to an alternative governance of emergency services being established. As I mentioned, the bill does not bring the entities that plan for and deal with emergencies closer together. In providing for their independence from the day-to-day intervention of government and bureaucracy, it also makes the respective services more independent of each other.

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