Page 2985 - Week 09 - Wednesday, 20 September 2006
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
This amendment asks the government to report back to the Assembly on the impact of budget cuts on the territory’s capacity to fight fires effectively. Mr Hargreaves has told me informally that there will be no cuts to the parks brigade. However, that is not information that I have had available to me. We are all aware that there are cuts happening within TAMS. As far as I know, Environment ACT does not exist anymore. Apparently, there is flux around these issues. I believe that, at this point in time, in September, when any day that rain is forecast, the forecast is withdrawn. We have got the weather bureau withdrawing the forecast of rain for the ACT. I know that we have a community which has a great deal of concern about our preparedness for fire.
My own concern is that recent budget cuts to staff of the former Environment ACT and the Parks and Conservation Service and, in particular, cutting the number of rangers will mean a reduction in capacity of the parks brigade because the parks brigade is a fully professional rural fire fighting service. It is the first line of response. Because that is the job of its members, they are available all the time.
The volunteer brigades are an essential part of the response system but they cannot replace and should not be asked to replace the professional brigade. This part of the disruption to the development of operational plans, not to mention disruption to the capacity to respond, has not been explained by government and has not received much public attention.
Consequently, I have moved this amendment which calls on the government to explain the impacts to us. Quite possibly, I do not have to wait until the end of the next sitting week. Mr Hargreaves might do it in the next five minutes. However, in the panic of budget cuts, I have every reason to fear that the government has gone too far here. Mr Hargreaves’s or Mr Corbell’s report to the Assembly, should my amendment be passed, would at least show that the government has considered the effects of these cuts and make the links between land management, nature protection and fire prevention.
MR PRATT (Brindabella) (5.12): I will talk to this amendment and then pick up on a couple of points made earlier by Dr Foskey. We will support this amendment. It adds value to our motion. It speaks quite sensibly, to try to tie the government down on getting back to the Assembly on what is happening with capability in Environment ACT and Parks and Conservation. It would be a very good thing to see the government come back and provide, chapter and verse, a situation report on what is happening with the parks brigade. We will support that amendment.
I go back to a couple of other points made earlier by Dr Foskey. She said, “This MLA here, Mr Steven Pratt, is not an expert in these areas.” She is right. If I may comment on that, it is an important point to be addressed in this place, not only from the point of view of this debate but procedurally in terms of the roles of MLAs. I make the point, Dr Foskey, through you, Mr Speaker, that we are not experts. None of us are experts on too many areas at all, even within the governance areas of the administration of the ACT, but surely it is the responsibility of MLAs to draw expert opinion around them—be they in government, opposition or on the crossbench—and then make decisions to push issues and recommendations drawn from the discussions, with that expert opinion drawn in.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .