Page 4109 - Week 13 - Wednesday, 13 December 2006
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
I turn to a couple of other areas in which we think the bushfire management plan fails. It does not lay down unequivocal standards for bushfire breaks along the urban edge, around specific vulnerable points and across differing regions and areas. It does not lay down the standard for acceptable levels of bushland and forest fuel tonnages allowed to remain generally as a rule and more specifically for each identified vulnerable area. It does not develop the arbitrary time lines by which the commissioner for the ESA and his delegates are to reconnoitre and inspect the territory in order to identify all preventive action tasking which must be undertaken by land managers, land owners, property owners, emergency services agencies, community fire units, police and other relevant government agencies.
It does not develop the arbitrary time lines by which all obligatory actions of land manager and owners must be completed. It does not really develop the guidelines by which the residents of vulnerable suburbs are kept informed about specifically identified vulnerabilities and hazards relevant to their suburb. We do not think that it directs the commissioner and his delegates to identify all bushfire operational plans required to be prepared as standard plans covering individual vulnerable suburbs or vulnerable suburban areas, settlements and points.
It does not direct the commissioner and his delegates to identify the need for and demand the preparation of any seasonal supplementary bushfire operational plans where the need may arise. It does not lay down guidelines for the preparation and approval of bushfire operational plans, two-year reviews of existing plans, upgrades to existing plans and any other plans that might need to be put in place for special occasions. Finally, we do not see within the operational plans, which really are attachments to the strategic bushfire management plan, anything which allows for confirmation of suburban warning systems and methods of warning for each suburb, settlement and vulnerable point and area.
The opposition believes that the SBMP and the BOPs should have these elements locked in place. The SBMP certainly covers many of these areas; there is no question about that. When you read through it you can see that it is a useful guide. It is a debating point and at least it allows the CO of the RFS and his brigade captains and the CO of the fire brigade and community fire units to read through it and maybe say, “That wouldn’t be a bad idea. How about if we go and try on that little task.”
It certainly covers most of those areas, but the opposition is saying that the SBMP should lock these things in place as measurable tasks and ensure that these things get done. Therefore, Mr Speaker, we are saying here today that this legislation we are tabling, the amending legislation, is a move to rectify these areas and will lock these measures in place. I must apologise to the house because one or two minor elements have been overlooked. I will seek to amend them before we get to debate the bill in detail just to polish it off, but we want to see all of the areas I have listed covered by legislation.
We think that the government would have a better instrument than what is a reasonable instrument now and the authorities would be that much more empowered to provide preventive planning measures for making the community a safe place. Another point, Mr Speaker, is that the SBMP that we have now is in draft form,
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .