Page 294 - Week 02 - Wednesday, 7 March 2007
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
under section 74 (1) of the Emergencies Act 2004. Within the plan itself, bushfire operational plans are required of land managers to implement prevention and preparedness strategies on their land. These bushfire operational plans are prepared annually, or every two years, and that is a statutory requirement. The requirement for bushfire operational plans from rural lessees is also delivered through the farm fire wise program. Again, Mr Speaker, what Mr Pratt proposes is already in place.
In addition, both the ESA and TAMS currently have strong procedures in place to ensure a systematic and regular assessment of bushfire fuels, through the completion of field assessments as well as the assessment and audit of works completed under bushfire operational plans. Mr Pratt’s amendment is an unnecessary one that would simply introduce duplication and confusion.
I turn to Mr Pratt’s proposed section 74 (2) (ka) and (kb). The first part is already identified as a requirement of the strategic bushfire management plan. Indeed, it is already in the Emergencies Act under section 74 (2) (d), which requires a risk assessment of factors contributing to bushfires and the spread of bushfires. It makes one think that Mr Pratt did not read the act before he drafted his amendment. When a revision of the strategic bushfire management plan is undertaken, the risk assessment for the ACT and its vulnerability to the impact of fires from New South Wales will be revised and refined even further.
As for the second element of Mr Pratt’s second amendment, the strategic bushfire management plan already identifies the location of asset protection zones. The use of the term “bushfire break” is misleading and outdated. It does not reflect the purpose of fuel management practices. Fuel breaks, which may be part of an asset protection zone, as they are described in the strategic bushfire management plan, do not stop fires. The purpose of these fuel breaks is to provide the opportunity to defend assets and to lessen the fire intensity.
Mr Pratt’s next proposed amendment is a new section 74 (2A), regarding setting the maximum level of fire fuel allowed in bushlands and forests. This approach is simplistic and does not reflect the complexity of vegetation and fuel dynamics, nor does setting a threshold level generally across the territory reflect any sort of localised risk assessment.
The strategic bushfire management plan, through a system of zoning, clearly identifies areas where bushfire has the potential to impact on assets, as well as strategic locations across the landscape which require fuel management activities to be implemented. These areas require treatment to the standards identified in the bushfire operational plans, which also specify the time frame by which they should occur. The ESA already audits these outcomes and they are reported against as a performance measure. Perhaps Mr Pratt has not read those.
The standards identified for these areas reflect the overall fuel hazard represented. This is consistent with the Victorian Department of Environment and Sustainability’s overall fuel hazard assessment guide, a guide that is nationally recognised and used by many land management and fire agencies throughout the country.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .