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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 06 Hansard (Tuesday, 22 June 2004) . . Page.. 2366 ..

MR PRATT (8.23): I seek leave to move amendment Nos 3 and 4 circulated in my name together.

Leave granted.

MR PRATT: I move amendments Nos 3 and 4 circulated in my name together [see schedule 2 at page 2441].

It is important that chief officers accept responsibility for other services and agencies, and I know they will. I know the people we are talking about, and I know what their professional attitudes are. I believe this is an issue that ought to be enshrined in legislation. The bill clearly spells out that a chief officer has management responsibility. It is also important that other agencies placed under the control of a chief officer, or a chief officer’s delegate, in the field know that they will be well looked after.

As we saw during January 2003, our men and women are the most important asset in the ACT’s emergency management system. I just do not see that the duty of care exercised by the chief officer, or his or her delegate in the field, over attached units from other services is spelt out in the legislation.

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) (8.26): The government has no problem with the sentiment expressed. To take Mr Pratt’s point that he did not see where it is covered in respect of amendment No 3, his views are already covered in clause 35 (1) of the bill. It says:

The chief officer of an emergency service may, in the exercise of the chief officer’s functions, give directions to emergency service members or any entity acting for the service.

Mr Pratt’s amendment blurs the delineation of responsibilities between the four services by providing that the chief officer in charge of an incident assumes management responsibility for another service. It is the same with amendment No 4. As bills are prepared we try to avoid repetition, in case there is conflict—and I think that might have happened here. The aspects Mr Pratt is concerned about are covered in the legislation. Let us not confuse it by putting something just a little bit different somewhere else in the legislation.

MS DUNDAS (8.27): This is one of a raft of amendments that seeks to do the same thing for each chief officer—to stipulate that the chief officer of an emergency service must manage another service placed under their control during an emergency. I understand that Mr Pratt wishes to enhance the interoperability and control between the services; however, I think the amendment may confuse the lines of accountability between services in an emergency situation. I agree with the minister that the issues Mr Pratt raises are in part dealt with by section 37, which states:

The chief officer of an emergency service must ensure that members of the service are available to take part in joint operational activities.

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