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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 06 Hansard (Tuesday, 22 June 2004) . . Page.. 2367 ..

The issue will be further dealt with by guidelines. It is clear that there will be on-the-ground lines of accountability and control by the incident controller, who will be responsible for the direction of all emergency services at that location. I think that is the key point we are trying to address here. These amendments would confuse lines of accountability and responsibility when the goal is interoperability, which is addressed through other sections of this bill. I will not be supporting this amendment.

MS TUCKER (8.28): The Greens will not be supporting this amendment either. We regard it as unnecessary, in that it is already clear that, when members of another agency are under the direction of another agency, that chief officer is in control. It is not necessary to say that the chief officer is responsible for general management and control of the other service as a whole. There is an important difference, which this amendment would blur, between managing people in an emergency or incident and managing the service or entity. This amendment would therefore blur the delineation between the separate services—something we are all keen to avoid.

Mr Pratt’s fourth amendment inserts a new section 28 (3) (d), providing for cooperation and exchange of information with other services and interstate organisations. In our view, this would also result in an overly detailed restatement of provisions already in the bill.

MR PRATT (8.29): I knew Mr Wood would refer to section 35 (1). I would just like the crossbenchers to take this comment on board—and perhaps they will change their minds. My definition of “control of another entity” is not simply giving direction; it is also “taking care of, duty of care, and taking responsibility for the welfare of those people”.

Section 35 (1) states that, “The chief officer of an emergency service may, in the exercise of the chief officer’s functions, give directions to…”. That subsection does not encapsulate the full definition of “control”. The purpose of this amendment is to try to broaden that responsibility so the chief officers do not simply give directions to whomever walks past; they take control of an entity attached to them; which means looking after the welfare of the volunteers as well as giving operational directions.

Amendments negatived.

Clause 28 agreed to.

Clause 29.

MR PRATT: On the basis of amendment No 3 failing to get up, I will cancel out amendments 5, 7 and 9. Amendments 3, 5, 7 and 9 are exactly the same. They express the same responsibility for each of the service chiefs.

MR SPEAKER: Are you telling us that you are going to proceed with amendment No 10?

MR PRATT (8.31): I have been asked to speak to amendment No 5. I will cancel amendments 5, 7 and 9 and proceed with amendment No 6. One part of amendment No 6 reflects a principle expressed in failed amendment No 4, but it also deals with another

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