Page 509 - Week 03 - Wednesday, 14 March 2007
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
executive directors and two commissioners—not too dissimilar to the ACT Department of Justice and Community Safety.
In the late 1990s Western Australia established a task force to look at ways of improving planning and coordination across the state’s emergency services. As a result the Fire and Emergency Services Authority of Western Australia was formed in 1999. Before members seize too quickly on the word “authority”, I should make this observation about the structure: the authority brought together the fire and rescue service, bushfire service, state emergency service, volunteer marine rescue services, emergency management services and community safety services. All these report to one chief executive and to a board. Again this was established following an examination of options for improving planning and coordination across emergency services.
Similarly, following a recent review South Australia recommended the creation of the South Australian Fire and Emergency Services Commission, which operates under the guidance of a board and a chief executive. Tasmania has a Department of Police and Emergency Management, which brings together the State Emergency Service, State Security Unit, Tasmanian Fire Service and Tasmania Police. Queensland has an integrated Department of Emergency Services in which fire and rescue, ambulance and emergency management all report through a common director-general—again, not too dissimilar to the ACT emergency services reporting through a chief executive.
While some of these are statutory creations they all have a common theme: they are all established with a view to improving planning and coordination across the state’s emergency services, and they all report through a common chief executive. The objective of ensuring that the emergency services work together, improve their planning processes and advance their capacity for coordination seems to be a nationwide trend. The need for the Emergency Services Agency in the ACT to be a statutory authority is not a prerequisite to improving the operational capability of the ESA. Mr Pratt, through his motion today, wants to create yet another restructure within emergency services, making that four restructures since January 2003.
Mr Pratt asserts that this motion highlights the streamlining of the chain of command and ministerial oversight. The fact that there is a chief executive in the Department of Justice and Community Safety does not mean the commissioner cannot contact the minister on a matter, or vice versa. As the minister said, he met with the ESA commissioner on 15 occasions in the past six months to discuss a wide range of emergency service matters. He also met with the chief officer of the services on eight occasions over the past six months. That is almost a meeting a week between the minister and officers from the ESA. Re-establishment of the agency as an authority would not give the agency any greater access to the minister.
I need to make some reference to Mr Smyth’s earlier comments. I wish to challenge his statement that Minister Corbell was removed from health and education. He was promoted and he is now the territory’s Attorney-General. That is in stark contrast to Mr Smyth’s experience in the Liberal Party. Not even members of his own party support him. Even they recognise how out of touch Brendan Smyth is.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .