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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 06 Hansard (Tuesday, 22 June 2004) . . Page.. 2364 ..

In constructing the bill and the authority, there has been overriding concern to ensure that the commissioner does not have too much direct involvement. Control, standards, protocols and training are the clear responsibility of the chief officers of each unit. The commissioner’s responsibility is to make sure that their objectives are sensible and that the work is done, not how it is done.

MS DUNDAS (8.16): I can understand where Mr Pratt is coming from in making this amendment but I am not sure if the amendment achieves the outcome he is looking for. This amendment mandates that the authority must become involved in each and every emergency situation that any of the emergency services deal with, and coordinate specific response to such an emergency. This could be the case whether it is a simple ambulance call-out, a small grass fire or a much larger emergency situation. The entire authority must get involved in managing quite minor situations as well as larger ones.

I understand that the intention here is to reinforce the coordinating role of the central authority; however, I am satisfied that the provision in section 12, in relation to the issuing of guidelines as well as the operation of a coordinating role, expressed in subsection 9 (4) of the bill, is adequate to ensure the outcome we are all hoping to achieve.

Proposed new clause 9A negatived.

Clauses 10 to 25, by leave, taken together and agreed to.

Clause 26.

MR PRATT (8.18): I move amendment No 2 circulated in my name [see schedule 2 at page 2441].

In respect of the objective and aim of this amendment, we believe it is necessary to ensure that a person, who may have done the right thing by responding in good spirit to an emergency before the services have arrived or assisted when asked to do so by the arriving service or services, is clearly advised when their services are no longer required, and therefore when the territory is no longer responsible to provide protection for them.

There are two issues here: firstly, protection for the individual. If they are volunteering and are accepted, they must behave as casual volunteers according to the definition of “casual volunteers”. Secondly, we want to try to define the line whereby, when a casual volunteer is no longer required, they are told so. The directing emergency officer on the spot knows that; the casual volunteer knows that; and the territory ceases to have any responsibility for them beyond that point.

MR WOOD (Minister for Disability, Housing and Community Services, Minister for Urban Services, Minister for Police and Emergency Services, and Minister for Arts and Heritage) (8.19): I remind Mr Pratt that we will be supporting some of his amendments. On somewhat the same grounds, we will not be supporting this one. In seeking to be specific you can be too specific, thereby creating trouble.

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