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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 06 Hansard (Tuesday, 22 June 2004) . . Page.. 2368 ..

sub-element under clause 29 (3) (h). I will talk to that component only, if I may. I move amendment No 6 circulated in my name [see schedule 2 at page 2441].

I assume that clause 29 (3) (g) will not get up because it reflects failed amendment No 4. However, I will speak to the second component of that, which is 29 (3) (g)—the need to fully explain the responsibilities of chief officers regarding the preparation of risk analysis.

I believe there is a need to screw down the functions of risk analysis to delineate who is responsible to carry out risk analysis in each of the areas of responsibility. I do not think that is clearly dealt with in other parts of the legislation. I took the opportunity because I thought that perhaps it should be written in here. Risk analysis is a vitally important function. We must be very careful to ensure that the people who are responsible to carry that out, and in the areas in which they are responsible to carry it out, know exactly what those directional guidelines are.

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) (8.35): The government will be opposing those amendments. The proposed new section 29 (3) (g) is the same as the amendment of clause 28 (3) (d) and is opposed for the same reason. I thought there was a logic in it—that, if Mr Pratt did not proceed with one, he would not proceed with the other.

A new section 29 (3) (h) is consequential on Mr Pratt’s amendment 13 down the track, which provides that the chief officers of the rural fire service and the fire brigade must assist in preparing specific parts of the strategic bushfire management plan. Of course, the strategic management plan will be drafted with the assistance of the chief officers. However, this amendment gives prominence to the chief officers of only two services and fails to recognise the essential contribution provided by land management services, rural lessees and other members of the authority.

I think, unintentionally no doubt, the amendment is also contrary to the cooperative management approach espoused through the bill. It also introduces a new concept to “bushfire risk analysis” which is not defined. That issue is well covered throughout the bill.

MR PRATT (8.36): The minister has said that, by defining the roles of the chief officers in terms of the risk analysis, we somehow remove the responsibility of land managers and land owners—and presumably the minister also meant departmental CEOs. That would not be the case. The fire service chief officers would be conducting analyses and checks, including looking at the work other people do. If they are the chief officers of our two prime fire services, they are extremely high in the chain of command of the planning process.

While you must expect departmental heads, land managers and land owners to make their contributions to the draft strategic bushfire management plan, you would also expect that the two senior fire authorities reporting to the authority head himself—the commissioner—would want to have a pretty important role to play. That is why it is written in here that risk analysis is a role that ought to be clearly defined and enshrined in the legislation.

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