Page 297 - Week 02 - Wednesday, 7 March 2007
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
become final? Or was there something that I missed? Was there a consultation process with the outcome that everyone was happy with the draft, so it should become the final?
Version 2 was only supposed to be released following further analysis and investigation. Does the fact that version 1 was suddenly called “final” without any public notice mean that the government carried out its further analysis and investigation and found that the current SBMP is perfect, needed no further work and would last out the 10 years after all? I somehow doubt that.
Six months was always very optimistic for the amount of work necessary to move from the existing SBMP to version 2. One of the reasons that version 2 could have been held up is that consideration of the outcomes of the coroner’s inquiry into the 18 January 2003 bushfires was to be included. Perhaps the minister will enlighten us on that.
I wonder whether Mr Pratt has consulted the full membership of the bushfire council about his bill. The emergency services commissioner has been tasked with consulting with them in monitoring the scope and effectiveness of the plan. According to the SBMP, there is also to be ongoing public input to the plan. I also wonder whether the bushfire management plan committee still exists in any form. Again, I seek enlightenment.
If these proposals were put through the ESA, or through the bushfire council, then they would be being debated by people with appropriate knowledge of the issues, not debated in the Assembly where, with respect, we can only provide limited expert input. Rather than making these amendments to the act, I think that Mr Pratt should be recommending amendments to the strategic bushfire management plan, if he finds it unsatisfactory, which would then go through due consultative processes.
Whilst agreeing with the need to thoroughly and consistently plan for bushfire prevention, and that hazard reduction may be a key to this in many areas, I do not think we need to amend our current legislation to cover hazard reduction tasks. The hazard reduction task section Mr Pratt proposes is already covered in the existing act. I think we need to look at hazard reduction on a BOP level. Each area, in consultation with all relevant stakeholders, including residents, should develop a BOP that suits each area. Some may then require more hazard reduction than other areas.
There is a wide range of ways that hazard reduction can be carried out. These include slashing, burning, mowing, clever planting, creating moister microclimates, and physical removal, not just the burning and grazing which is usually talked about. Also, it is very important to note the importance of contiguous areas in terms of habitat preservation, which will become increasingly important as the effects of climate change set in. These contiguous areas need to be taken into account when planning hazard reductions and firebreaks. In fact, I would like to see the ACT develop ecological guidelines for burning, much like the guidelines and procedures for ecological burning on public land which have been developed in Victoria and which may have been what Mr Corbell was referring to.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .