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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 06 Hansard (Tuesday, 22 June 2004) . . Page.. 2365 ..

It really is not necessary; it does not clarify the bill; and in fact it builds uncertainty into the relationship between the people in charge of activities and casual volunteers. The government agrees that casual volunteers should have an expectation that they will be advised when their services are not needed. Of course in the command situation that applies, that would happen.

However, this amendment goes further by requiring the person in charge to formally terminate the role of the volunteer. That may not always be possible but, under this amendment, the person in charge would be held responsible in all cases for the volunteer. I think that would discourage people in charge from accepting the services of casual volunteers. Mr Pratt has great confidence in the way this bill has been done. I think he needs to extend that confidence to the way operations will be conducted on the ground. I think this only creates a bit of confusion and doubt in people’s minds about just what should be happening.

MS DUNDAS (8.21): I again appreciate that Mr Pratt is trying to provide some clarity on the role of volunteers; however, this is not best achieved by mandating that the person in charge specifically release every casual volunteer they accept on each and every occasion. This may place an undue burden on the person in charge to supervise and watch the activities of every volunteer; it might discourage emergency services from utilising the services of casual volunteers; and it may create additional liability issues for emergency services. There is a whole raft of issues that could arise if the Assembly were to support this amendment. I think the concerns Mr Pratt is trying to address here will be addressed in the way the Emergency Services Authority operates.

MS TUCKER (8.22): The Greens will not be supporting this amendment either. It seeks to make clear the handover of responsibility between casual volunteers—the people who turn up to deal with emergency situations before the service arrives—and the service. To do so would create a statutory responsibility for the person in charge of the activity to oversight any people volunteering in this way and make assessments of whether the work is too dangerous for the particular volunteers.

It is an interesting amendment. Had we more time to consider it, we would possibly have supported it. However, given the government’s concern—and indeed the commissioner’s concern—that it creates an overly high responsibility for detailed instruction and supervision for the person in charge of an emergency response operation, and that it in fact raises the level of prescription of responsibilities, I am not prepared to support it today. I am not sure enough that there is a problem to address, and I am not sure enough that this solution does not create more problems. Volunteers are already covered, but with this amendment the liability would shift.

Amendment negatived.

Clause 26 agreed to.

Clause 27 agreed to.

Clause 28.

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