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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 06 Hansard (Tuesday, 22 June 2004) . . Page.. 2361 ..

contributed to it. They have contributed to it again tonight, and I will make some comments about that.

Both Mr Pratt and Mr Smyth were a bit critical of the period since this bill was first tabled—I think it has been five weeks—but I point out that members have been kept in the loop. It is not as though this bill was dumped in front of you and you were completely unaware of what was going on. When the bill came down, you had already willingly been much a part of the consultation process. Indeed, I think five weeks is quite a good time.

We indulge ourselves in this place somewhat, and we should learn from the practices of other parliaments. In this place we sometimes require very extensive periods to think about things. That is not a luxury that most other parliaments around this country have. There was comment that we should have done this earlier. Mr Corbell pointed out that the legislation only came into effect in 1999, for heaven’s sake. We had our first fire in December 2001. I just do not think there is any justification for making that claim.

We are very happy to get support but I suppose we must expect that, in getting that support, there will be a few barbs thrown. I am not going to argue too much tonight because I am happy with the comments I have been receiving. Another comment made was that the legislation does not give the new authority much time to mobilise and get ready for the fire service. I think Mr Pratt said that, and Mr Smyth might also have made some comment about it. That is not right. The Emergency Services Bureau—soon to be the Emergency Services Authority—is already working the way the bill intends, and has been operating that way for a while.

In the Namadgi fires a few weeks ago it was all operated under that process. As you would expect, the officers have not just been sitting and waiting for this legislation to come through so they can then jump into action and get organised on it. That has been much of the process to date. That process has been helped, I emphasise, by a 26 per cent increase in spending. That is a most significant increase in spending in anybody’s budget—and that level of expenditure is certainly helping them to get organised.

Mr Pratt has proposed a number of amendments and, following the round table and the discussions, has modified some of those. We will support the main one he is concerned about—the community and information plan. He has proposed amendment No 18, which is about disaster plans. We will support that with our amendment. We will also support the second part of that—clause 147B, “Community and information plan”—in its entirety, except that we will remove several words that we think are a bit unnecessary. Members have seen that in the amendment I have circulated.

We will support two of Mr Pratt’s other amendments, because we can see that they are effective but, for the most part, I do not think the other amendments are necessary. They are not the sorts of things you would put into a bill. Indeed, from all the advice I have, some of the amendments make things a bit uncertain and do not clarify them at all. I am happy to cooperate with Mr Pratt as far as I can, but I think he will be satisfied that the major concern about which he spoke will be accommodated.

Ms Tucker mentioned the amendment we are moving, which is in keeping with what she was considering as she went through the various parts of the bill. Ms Tucker made a

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