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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 06 Hansard (Tuesday, 22 June 2004) . . Page.. 2370 ..

This amendment is self-explanatory. I believe that, as part of the preventative management process, where it is practicable and within the limitations of time and resources, where the emergency services can assist landowners with identifying, assessing and reducing bushfire fuel hazards, we should try and do that. It is granted that you cannot mandate for that but, in the spirit of this legislation and in the spirit of how we approach emergency management, I believe it should be enshrined 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) (8.46): On the advice I have, the government will not be supporting this amendment. Of course, services should assist land managers where possible. However, including this requirements in statute, effectively Mr Pratt transfers to the rural fire service responsibility for assessing and reducing all bushfire hazards across the territory. That is the impact of the amendment.

You may not read it that way, but I am advised that that is the impact of the amendment and that it is therefore contrary to a lot of the things in this bill. It is essential that landowners and managers recognise and manage their responsibilities in reducing fire hazards. That said, it is anticipated that all parts of the authority will assist the community wherever appropriate.

MS DUNDAS (8.47): This amendment, along with some of Mr Pratt’s other amendments, again shows that his intentions are worthy, but these amendments create other problems that I believe mean they should be opposed. Mr Pratt’s amendment would not only encourage emergency services to assist land managers with their bushfire planning but also create a statutory responsibility for them to be involved in that process and do the work. It does not matter that they say, “to the extent practicable having regard to time and resources”—it does make it a statutory responsibility.

This could reduce the amount of effort land managers put into preparing for bushfires, because there would be an obligation on fire services to do it for them. I would say that would be an unintended consequence of this, but one that nobody should support. The management of bushfire prevention on private property is the responsibility, in the first instance, of the property owner. This amendment could have the effect of changing that responsibility, and hence should not be supported.

MS TUCKER (8.48): The Greens will not be supporting this amendment. The overall responsibilities of the chief officer of the rural fire service, as listed at section 30, include operational planning, fire response, community awareness about fire prevention and preparedness and control. As part of fulfilling this role, it seems pretty clear that they would need to be aware of bushfire fuel hazards in their area. It is also fairly clear that to fulfil these responsibilities they would help landowners to understand their responsibilities.

However, pulling this one detail out of the range of responsibilities of the chief officer and the service does not add to the effectiveness. Indeed, by picking out one detail for specification and not others, it could be read to imply a particular prioritisation of work. This is not how the act is structured. The outcomes are the focus. I think we have to

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