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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 06 Hansard (Tuesday, 22 June 2004) . . Page.. 2377 ..

The amendment would also require the minister to report to this place on all amendments, including minor changes—perhaps even just spelling or early drafting concepts. The bushfire management plan is, as we have indicated, capable of being constantly updated. It is not a reasonable proposition that I should have to come into the Assembly and make an announcement every time something happens.

I can understand that you want to know clearly what people are doing but I think what you are asking for only adds to the complexity and is not necessary. The bill already provides for the draft strategic bushfire management plan to be the subject of public consultation, and following that it becomes a disallowable instrument. The additional step that is proposed would add enormous complexity to the preparation of the plan. So we just cannot support the amendment.

MS DUNDAS (9.14): The Democrats will not be supporting this amendment. I believe that, in the first instance, this amendment creates some logistical problems for the Assembly in that every proposal to change the draft plan must be presented despite the fact that the plan is only a draft and despite the fact that the proposals may not be taken up by government. The amendment simply creates a lot of administrative hassle without achieving any conclusive or positive outcomes.

I am concerned that, with the focus of this amendment solely on the issue of fuel reduction, it appears the only issue of bushfire prevention that would be of interest to the Assembly is fuel reduction. I do not believe that is the case. Many other areas of bushfire prevention and other issues deserve equal attention. I think this amendment creates a number of logistical problems and also puts too much focus on one particular area.

MS TUCKER (9.15): While I appreciate the desire to require the minister to clearly identify where the final strategic bushfire management plan differs from the draft, this formulation of words will, I think, create confusion rather than assist members to clearly identify the source of changes. The plan is a disallowable instrument. The draft plan will go out for public consultation and so members will be able to track through to find any differences.

I agree with Mr Pratt that a clear identification of changes and hopefully some explanation would be useful, but the wording “before making the plan” is too cumbersome. It is too late in the day to muck around with amendments to this amendment.

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) (9.16): Mr Speaker, I support what Ms Tucker says. When this matter was being discussed in detail it was suggested to Mr Pratt that we could tidy up this amendment by asking the minister to make available papers so that any ministerial activity in this area would be known. So I might suggest to Mr Pratt that at some stage he bring in legislation to do that. As things stand, the amendment cannot be supported, but there is a point that can be made.

MR PRATT (9.17): Mr Speaker, I thank members for their advice on that. I take Ms Dundas’s point. I do not know how the hell I put “bushfire fuel reduction” in the

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