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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 06 Hansard (Tuesday, 22 June 2004) . . Page.. 2373 ..

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) (8.57): The government opposes amendments Nos 13 and 14, I think for good reasons. Amendment No 13 is of the same type as amendments Nos 6 and 8—the ones Mr Pratt withdrew. It 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. This amendment is contrary to the cooperative management approach espoused throughout the bill. I know that is not Mr Pratt’s intention, but that is the impact of his amendment.

We also oppose amendment 14, which would require the authority to conduct annual audits of compliance with the strategic bushfire management plan. Of course the authority intends to audit compliance with that plan. I think Mr Pratt has seen that plan, and it is a massive document. The amount of land area in the ACT is enormous. The authority does not have the resources—nor is it appropriate—to carry out an audit of all that land every year. It will be constantly monitored and worked on, but to audit it every year is not practicable and nor, I say, is it necessary, so long as we keep our eye on it, keep monitoring it and bringing it up to date—and that is what is going to happen.

The authority will certainly audit the land that represents the highest risk first. The authority may audit high-risk areas weekly or monthly, whereas low-risk areas may be audited much less regularly. I just do not think that the second part, in particular, is practicable. It really would be diverting resources to something that is not in every case essential.

MS TUCKER (8.59): Speaking to amendments Nos 13 and 14, we will not be supporting either of them. I believe that amendment No 13 misunderstands the complexity of input that will be needed to create the strategic bushfire management plan. Mr Pratt’s argument is that this step of assistance should be specifically required. However, given that these officers are already responsible for operational planning, fire response and community awareness about fire prevention and preparedness in their respective areas, it is difficult to imagine how an adequate plan could be prepared without accessing their expertise. That is how the overall responsibilities and results nature of the bill works.

The other problem with specifying just the input of these people is that, once you list some types of input, it sets up a clear implication that the other input that you would want for an adequate plan is less important. In amendment No 14, I understand Mr Pratt’s concern to ensure that we know where the plans are being implemented, given the failure to implement a range of plans and recommendations over the years, but this amendment is not necessary. It would create an obligation for a large amount of work of questionable value.

Under section 73 the authority can establish a bushfire management plan committee, to “monitor the scope and effectiveness of the plan”. That is, to assess the implementation and, more importantly, the effectiveness of the implementation. In section 103 inspectors are given powers to enter land to check compliance with the plan. The commissioner has explained, in response to this amendment, that it will be almost impossible to completely audit the plan in its entirety every year. Instead they will assess areas of highest risk

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