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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 06 Hansard (Tuesday, 22 June 2004) . . Page.. 2350 ..

We have to come back again to the fact that emergencies require urgent action, possibly in order to save lives. The territory controller is required to believe on reasonable grounds that the person is obstructing or intends to obstruct. I believe that this is a necessary power and is well enough defined and limited. Thus it meets the definition of human rights in that, as the minister pointed out in the response to the scrutiny of bills report, few rights are absolute and limits may be placed on rights within defined boundaries and with the aim of balancing competing interests. He then goes on to discuss what is a reasonable limit.

The scrutiny report also discussed the right to compensation issue. Carried over from the Emergency Management Act 1999 is a right to compensation for damages directly resulting from acts of omissions of the territory controller in exercising emergency powers for a declared state of emergency. The decision on the entitlement and amount of compensation is made by the minister. This decision is no longer appealable to the AAT. It is now to the courts that you must turn for a review. This change bears some consideration.

The government gives as its reasons the fact that the task of the reviewing body is likely to include decisions on an appropriate amount of compensation and that the courts are better suited to make those assessments than the AAT. The difficulty with changing from the AAT to the courts as a review body is the higher cost involved in going to court. However, it’s also true that the new procedures under the Civil Law (Wrongs) Act make it much more likely that the claim will be resolved before getting to court. On balance, I’m okay with this change.

I have expressed in the past some concerns about the new planning concepts in the non-urban study where we see the same areas labelled as bushfire abatement and as wildlife corridors. It will require careful attention to meet both objectives.

I believe that this bill establishes the principles and the input to give us the best chance of doing so. In urban areas where this remains an issue, such as the north Gungahlin suburbs, decisions should be made to separate the zones. The nature reserve should not be required to be the bushfire buffer for the suburbs.

As I alluded to earlier, Mr Dunn’s commitment to working with all of the interested parties to redevelop the emergency services system is a model of democracy and consultation in action, important both because it has re-engaged people who were very unhappy and angry and because, as a result of this committed, energetic, flexible work, the system will be stronger.

I have raised my concerns many times about some of the extreme responses to the fire, which meant there was political pressure to effectively slash and burn. This is of concern not only because it risks loss of ecological diversity but also because various studies of fire ecology have shown it is unlikely to reduce fire risk. There are ways to address both fire-risk reduction and the protection of environmental, ecological and biodiversity values. Indeed, it’s essential to our future that we do find that way, not only on the fire risk but also in many other areas of life. My concerns and those of fire ecologists and environmentalists have been integrated into this bill.

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