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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 06 Hansard (Tuesday, 22 June 2004) . . Page.. 2374 ..

more frequently and others less so. Reviews of the plan are required in two different cycles—two years and 10 years.

MS DUNDAS (9.01): Amendment No 13 would mandate that the chief officers of the fire brigade and the rural fire service must prepare risk analysis, and these analyses would then fit into the strategic bushfire plan. I believe that in reality, as the bill stands, the strategic bushfire management plan would be compiled by the authority with input from a wide variety of sources, including government department experts as well as operational emergency services units such as the rural fire service unit.

To mandate that risks should only be determined by the chief fire officers would place all the burden and the authority onto one source, which actually goes against the intention of this bill of a general multi-disciplinary approach taken across all four services. So that is why I cannot support this amendment. I think the plan has been provided and is being overseen by the Emergency Services Authority. By putting it down to the chief fire officers, we run the risk of not actually getting what we are trying to achieve.

I will now turn to amendment 14. As the minister has outlined, to require the authority to conduct every year an audit of the entirety of the bushfire hazard management targets places a heavy administrative burden on the authority, which does not have the capability to audit every single property in the territory ever year. I will not be supporting the amendment on those grounds. But I do join with Mr Pratt in advocating that audits be conducted regularly and that there be an ongoing communication between the authority and the Assembly on how our bushfire fuel management is going.

I understands the concerns, Mr Pratt, but I think it is important that we do not put onerous administrative responsibility on an authority that is trying to deal with emergency situations.

MRS CROSS (9.03): Mr Speaker, I will also, regrettably, not be supporting Mr Pratt’s amendments 13 and 14, although I understand the sentiment behind both of them. I think the bill should not be burdened with additional detail—detail that more properly should be contained in specific operational documentation. The scope and level of detail in this bill as it stands are appropriate to its purpose.

It is important that we all accept that this bill has been developed with the benefit of the input of very considerable practical operational experience. I know that its preparation has been thorough and careful. Indeed, I must pay tribute to Peter Dunn and his team for probably one of the most comprehensive pieces of legislation that has come across my desk in a very long time.

The bill should be enacted as soon as possible without further tinkering. I think, after carrying out any necessary finetuning, the sooner that is done the better.

MR PRATT (9.05): Mr Speaker, I would like to pick up on a couple of points. I would ask that these two issues be reconsidered. It has been said that perhaps amendment 13 is seen to be too prescriptive. I would just put it to members again that, for arguments sake, the chief officer of the rural fire service may be responsible for the area west of the Murrumbidgee. We are not saying that he is entirely responsible for carrying out all of the risk analyses for the rural area west of the Murrumbidgee. As I said when we were

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