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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 06 Hansard (Tuesday, 22 June 2004) . . Page.. 2346 ..

heroic and brilliant. I did not find it inactive and I did not find it ineffective. I can recall being involved, prior to coming to this place, in the development of evacuation plans and evacuation and recovery centres. The plans that were put into place were instantly developed by people in the Children’s, Youth and Family Services Bureau, as it then was. The process was guided and directed through training programs mentored by the Emergency Services Bureau through the Winchester Centre. I attended some of those; so I reject this notion of inactivity and ineffectiveness.

I think it is important to put these things into perspective, however. This government came to office in October 2001. The first bushfire of any note in recent times was at Christmas 2001, if my memory serves me correctly; so the response to that bushfire occurred under regimes set up by those opposite. This government had ministers whose chairs were not warm at that stage; so to try to say that this government is responsible for both bushfires is stretching the point a bit.

In the Fourth Assembly there was an attempt by those opposite, under the guiding hand of now Senator Humphries, to reform the emergency services structure. That meant, though, for those who were here at the time, the collapsing of all acts into one service. It meant the introduction of what was essentially the Canadian armed service model. It destroyed the military model, which must by its nature be service-specific, and that brought about a revolt from all elements of the emergency services and all but destroyed morale. There was no consultation with front-line fighters at all—well, nothing of any note. I say this as a result of my experience as the shadow minister for emergency services in that Assembly. I made it my job to talk to many of those people who were being trained to protect us.

The difference here is that the restructure is based on a consultative model. It recognises and respects individual service cultures and creates a cooperative service model designed to provide immediate, professional and appropriate response to disasters. However, I caution those involved in the consultation model not to forget the unique attitude to the service of volunteers in both the SES and bushfire service. They have a different perspective and it would be a mistake to fail to include them in the consultation process—that would be terrible—but also not to listen to them and hear them. If something is going to fall over, if the cooperation of the volunteers is not there, you will have trouble. If it is there, you will be sailing.

In reflecting on the criticism that I had of the service in those days, from administrative systems to consultation, I remember that I had no criticism at all of the professional ability involved in the front-line firefighting. I had nothing but absolute respect for them and I have to say that that respect has not diminished in the least. In fact, it has increased 600 or 700 feet as a result of the effort that was made during the 2003 fires.

Regarding Mr Pratt’s comment that, in a mere three and a half months’ time, we will be asking the Emergency Services Authority to mobilise, I have every confidence that they can and will respond, and will safeguard our community. When the Minister for Police and Emergency Services presented the Emergencies Bill 2004 in this Assembly on 14 May 2004, he evoked some of the salient lessons of January 2003 and spoke of the need to proceed as quickly as possible to put in place a new system for the management of emergencies in the ACT. Minister Wood did not linger on recollection of those sad

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