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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 06 Hansard (Tuesday, 22 June 2004) . . Page.. 2384 ..

in a very serious situation, the territory controller has unequivocal control of all emergency service units and should use them and will use them as he sees fit to protect all units and the community.

One of the major thrusts of this legislation is to create emergency services that communicate effectively, and the territory controller would have access to and control of those communications. We have advised you recently that before too long we will be getting a very new communications system that will remove any of the problems that have been experienced in the past.

In a declared emergency we cannot afford to have operational units acting in another jurisdiction without the knowledge of the controller. The safety of people cannot be put at risk in that way. I emphasise the point that I think in the near future communications should not be a problem.

MS DUNDAS (9.43): This amendment will allow territory resources to be deployed outside the territory during a state of emergency without the knowledge or approval of the territory controller. The legislation will not impact on the ability of emergency services to get access to an emergency situation in the ACT by passing through New South Wales or to enter New South Wales to escape a dangerous situation. Those issues are not to do with deployment of resources and they are not prevented from doing so by the existing section 165 of the bill.

It is not the duty of an ACT emergency service to go into New South Wales to help with an emergency without permission of the territory controller, particularly during a state of emergency when all our resources will be needed here. I would envisage that if there were a threatening situation in which it looked like a fire could jump the border—and we know that fires do not stop at borders—the incident controller would communicate with the territory controller in order to get the necessary approval. This is about utilising the clear lines of communication, responsibility and accountability that we are building into the way that we deal with emergency situations here.

I think this amendment clouds the clear lines of authority that we are trying to set up here and, therefore, it is an amendment that I cannot support.

MS TUCKER (9.44): The Greens have a different understanding to that of Mr Pratt of the operation of clause 165. We do not see that it at all prevents a unit at risk from going across the border to take evasive action. Through the development of protocols, et cetera, the issues relating to working across the border will be sorted out in an organised way.

The purpose of this provision is to set the standard for control of ACT resources under ACT control unless they have been expressly deployed. This is to prevent confusions that can arise and have arisen when ACT resources were across the border, unknown to the territory controller.

MR PRATT: Mr Speaker, I would like to make a couple of points. If I remember correctly, clause 165 talks about making sure that units do not deploy across the border. My understanding of the definition of “deploy” is that somebody intentionally carries out an operational manoeuvre or task involving all of the personnel and equipment of a unit. That is what 165 means. You are talking about an intention.

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