Page 2986 - Week 09 - Wednesday, 20 September 2006
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Surely, if we as MLAs are not willing or are not able to try to identify, for example, the areas in the ACT vulnerable to bushfire risk, then perhaps we should not be here. You do not need to be an expert to boldly—or you do not even need to be bold—stand up and make a comment about those issues. It is very important that we try.
Whilst we are on the issues raised by Dr Foskey about the environmental aspects of bushfire risk analysis and bushfire risk management, I have to say that it was the Greens’ and environmental activists’ inaction and downright obstructionism that really caused massive areas of south-eastern Australia, including the ACT, in the last six or seven years to be carrying unacceptably high fuel hazard tonnages per hectare as well as overgrown fire tracks and broken bridges. Please, please, Greens, do not lecture the Liberals about their willingness to take firm but sensible action to mitigate the bushfire risk.
I commend Mrs Dunne for the comments that she made about the conservationists’ attitudes. She and Mr Smyth referred to the McBeth report, which was a hell of a wakeup call to all of us a good decade ago about the need to bushfire risk-analysis, set tasks, mitigate the fire risk and do something about these tonnages per hectare across New South Wales and ACT forests.
The mismanagement of New South Wales forests on our western border is very much our problem. The conservationists in New South Wales have much to answer for—for their failures to allow sensible people in bushfire management in that state to make the firm and slightly tough decisions that had to be made to address these issues. It is very important that we say that. I will leave it at that for now and see where we go. I will be supporting the amendment, despite my concerns on those other areas that I have just discussed.
MR HARGREAVES (Brindabella—Minister for the Territory and Municipal Services, Minister for Housing and Minister for Multicultural Affairs) (5.16): The government will not be supporting the amendment. Firstly, I thank Mr Pratt for bringing the motion forward. One of the things that we need to recognise in this place—and it goes to what Mr Pratt was just talking about—is that whether we are experts or whether we are not experts matters in a funny sense, but not because we are in fact charged by our constituency, the people of the ACT, to bring in matters and discuss them in debate in this place. We should not merely abrogate our responsibilities because we are not experts in something.
I agree with Mr Pratt. People should consider their position. What is healthy about this place is that we are arguing about whether or not each of us is doing enough to look after the safety of the people of ACT. That is the issue really. The opposition are criticising the government for not doing enough, saying that we could do more in this area or that area. We argue about things like: “Tell us where we do not have to do something.” We argue about whether our resources are being placed correctly or whether there are enough resources.
The fact is, though, that we are debating the safety of the people of the ACT. Sometimes we get carried away with the theatre of it, and people will think that we are at each other’s throats for the sake of it, for the theatre and for the fun of it. Such is not the case
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .