Page 784 - Week 03 - Wednesday, 29 March 2006
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Research and investigation, since the January 2003 bushfires and before, has identified the key role that suburban fuels, including garden fuels, play in house losses.
An assessment of house loss after the 2003 Canberra fires led to the conclusion that it was likely that more than 50 per cent of the house losses were due to fire attack from suburban fuels. These findings point to measures that every householder can take to reduce the risk of fire damage. The plan states:
The ACT Planning and Land Authority is currently investigating construction standards for bushfire protection in the ACT.
I urge the government to release findings, where appropriate, on construction standards as the information becomes available. After all, the plan includes the promise that information presently available will be communicated consistently.
The Emergencies Act 2004 creates inspectors and provides for notices and penalties to support effective bushfire preparedness. I am interested to know how these papers are being used and how many notices have been issued. Perhaps the time has come to actually prohibit some types of construction materials in properties on the urban fringe. After all, if a fire gets established in one property, it endangers not only that property, but also all surrounding properties. I do query whether the government is as committed as it should be to implementing the more politically sensitive components of the plan such as enforcing building codes regarding inappropriate materials.
These are measures that the government can take to reduce the risk of fire damage. Perhaps Mr Pratt’s suggestion that bushfire operational plans should be prepared for each suburb is a good one. During the 2003 fires we saw that, once the fire hit, each suburb was basically on its own. Of course, the positive community-building aspect of preparing together for fire events is something to be encouraged for its own sake. On this point, I note that some community fire units have complained of a lack of resources. That is something that I believe the government has yet to address without just huffing and puffing and blowing the house down.
I know that Mr Pratt’s motion will not get up; so I have not wasted my time drafting amendments. But I would support the motion with the following changes. I would delete the reference to “increased vulnerability” and replace it with “continuing vulnerability”. I also have reservations about 40 metre firebreaks around vulnerable suburbs, but I do support a similar sized area that is closely managed in order to prevent fire. This means more effective and better-targeted slashing operations than are currently undertaken.
The government’s proposed amendments to this motion continue the government’s self-congratulatory theme. Maybe someone in Minister Hargreaves’s office had a good little chuckle about the fact that they were going to turn Mr Pratt’s motion into yet another hymn of praise for the Stanhope government. It would have been better for them just to reject the motion entirely. In its present form the amendments have no substance. Consequently I will not be supporting them.
MRS DUNNE (Ginninderra) (4.07): To take up the theme that Dr Foskey concluded with and speaking to the amendments again, the Stanhope government does what it does
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .