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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 06 Hansard (Tuesday, 22 June 2004) . . Page.. 2355 ..

Out on the ground—I can talk perhaps for the rural fire service and the ES boys and girls, ladies and gentlemen, volunteers—the ones that I’ve spoken to are willing to give this a 100 per cent try to make it work; they’ll do their part because they think the commissioner and other officers have actually listened to them. There is some dubiousness about how it will actually work, but the feel I get is that people are actually willing to give this a go. And that’s a really good sign because it’s coming up from the grass roots. Whether you talk to new volunteers, volunteers with extensive experience, office holders inside the brigades, the feel I get is that people are happy with this and are willing to give it a go. They do understand that new systems like this, new set-ups like this, will take some time to bed down and we may need to come back.

I understand the government has foreshadowed there may be some amendments some time in the future. But I think, given the goodwill that exists because of the process that’s been followed, this has a very real chance of bedding down quickly and effectively.

I guess in any emergency, whether you want to take it from one extreme, the military, to the other, emergency services, it all comes down to your command and control structures. I think this is where the bill is very different from what McLeod was recommending, and I think it’s better for that reason. If you go to parts 5.1 and 5.2, what we have is a division between the rural and the urban. In 5.2 we actually have outlined what the fire response and the control will be.

You can’t draw a line on any map and categorically say, “That’s all rural; that’s all urban.” It doesn’t work that way. The very nature of the bush capital, with a number of satellite cities surrounded by patches of bush—it necessarily will not fall within the defining line as to what’s urban and what’s rural, what is in the city and what isn’t—makes it difficult.

Part 5.2, the fire response and the control mechanism, to my mind, is actually at the heart of this bill. And it’s at the heart of the bill because it’s not an exclusion process; it’s actually a process that allows the officers in control to respond appropriately and gives them guidance on how that will work. It’s quite simple; there are areas in this territory where the most appropriate response will be a light unit from a volunteer bushfire brigade because it’s at the top of the hill and there are no urban fire units responsible. That having been said, that light unit at the top of a hill may well be within sight of homes.

This is the transition and this is what part 5.2, I believe, really talks about. It’s about how we respond to fires and how we control that transition. It’s that transition, I think, that caused us the most grief in January last year and it’s that transition which will be at the heart of making sure it doesn’t happen again.

So the appropriate response to a small grassfire on the top of a hill at the bottom of Tuggeranong might be a light unit from Southern or Guises Creek. Depending on what’s available, it might come down the road from Jerrabomberra. If that fire is put out and the emergency passes, then there’s no further response. But should that fire grow and move to within, I’ll call it, a dangerous distance from the back of houses, the response will be upgraded. And this is where the smooth transition must occur that will include our urban fire fighters.

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