Page 2988 - Week 09 - Wednesday, 20 September 2006

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

---

Dr Foskey’s amendment to Mr Hargreaves’s amendment negatived.

Question put:

That Mr Hargreaves’s amendment be agreed to.

The Assembly voted—

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

MR SPEAKER: The question now is that Mr Pratt’s motion, as amended, be agreed to. I call on Mr Pratt to close the debate.

MR PRATT (Brindabella) (5.27) in reply: I shall close, Mr Speaker. The opposition could in no way support that amendment because it is a rubbish amendment, really. An amendment which talks about six new world-class ambulances in relation to a grave motion on strategic bushfire planning is an insult and a joke. The bulk of the amendments were a bit like that.

The minister said that he did not want to rush the finalisation of the SBMP. We know that because they have been dawdling on this for about three years. We think that is a terrible position to take. You need to finalise the strategic bushfire management plan. You need to turn it into a concrete action plan, and then you can review it. If you have a solid formalised document, which you might review every two years as you do with BOPs, then at least the plan is an authority. So far, you have failed to provide an authority. You have a very interesting and quite useful discussion document which gives people some guidance, but it is not an authority.

The minister said that, for example, BOPs are being put together. He said that federal departments—for example, defence agencies—are preparing BOPs now. Why were these BOPs not prepared two years ago—one year after the finalisation of the McLeod inquiry? Why are they still being talked about? Why are we still negotiating with various agencies and bodies around town to draft and prepare bushfire operational plans? That underlines the point we have made here: this government is just not fair dinkum about getting this thing moving.

How can we be confident that the hazard fuel reduction and bushfire fuel management policies that are currently in place are adequate when the minister has not been confident enough to make that plan final? The government has never answered the opposition’s charges in estimates and annual reports that the document needs to be an uncompromising authority whereby the commissioner of the ESA has the power to compel land managers to finalise preventative tasks by certain preseason and in-season milestones.

---

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