Page 304 - Week 02 - Wednesday, 7 March 2007
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
authorities and communities across the full spectrum of the ACT, well then that is not glutting the paperwork chain—that is simply making sure that copies of plans are available to those people who need to see them. So an expansion of the number of plans does not do that.
If the minister is concerned that additional paperwork will be created by requiring the commissioner and his delegates to produce on time a few more risk analysis plans or a few reconnaissance plans, then I would firmly state that these tasks would simply plug the gaps which currently exist. This would not be a glut of paperwork. It would be just making sure that all the t’s are crossed and all the i’s are dotted in terms of the risk analysis that needs to be done in preparing the territory for bushfire risk.
The opposition very much believes in the need for resilience plans. If you observe the standards which are exercised overseas, minister, you will see resilience plans in place covering all manner of communities from, for example, London city down to individual boroughs across England. If you look at that standard you will see that for all manner of risk, be it storm risk, flood risk or terrorist risk, every police borough, every community, has resilience plans. Of course, those plans are drawn up to a standard. So the standard is common and enough plans are written. And if that involves more paperwork then, I would put it to you, it is a sensible approach to collect information which must be provided to all people concerned, be they authorities, citizens or workers.
Mr Speaker, the minister has said that all of the matters which I am seeking to be covered in the amendment bill are already covered in the act and are already in the SBMP. Well, that is simply not the case. The minister is certainly correct when he says that the sorts of issues that we are addressing when we talk about bushfire risk management are covered in the SBMP. I have no issue with the minister on that. Yes, the act and draft SBMP (1) do cover all the types of actions that we want to see addressed. But the point is that the SBMP covering all the types of issues that need to be addressed is written in a conversational way. We have always made the point that the SBMP we currently have is a very useful document. It is certainly a document which provides a comprehensive checklist of the types of issues that we want to see the broader community and our authorities address. But it does so in a Women’s Weekly fashion.
The document addresses these issues in a conversational way and that is our concern with the government’s bushfire management in general, its strategic bushfire management plan in particular and the act. It covers these areas in a conversational way. Yes, there should be fuel hazard reduction. Yes, risk analysis ought to be undertaken. Yes, firebreaks ought to be constructed around vulnerable points. Yes, pattern breaks should be built across parkland. Yes, yes, yes! I cannot fault the minister. I certainly cannot find anything in the SBMP which is certainly not a good idea to be considered. They are all relevant.
But the point is this: the strategic bushfire management plan must be an action plan. And it must be an action plan that lays down fundamental frameworks for tasks which are going to have to be carried out by certain dates in the annual cycle of preparation and planning. We do not believe that the SBMP does that and we do not think the existing act, the Emergencies Act, stipulates that these things have to be carried out
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .