Page 513 - Week 03 - Wednesday, 14 March 2007
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
commissioner, the two deputy commissioners and the heads of services will no longer have—they have not had for some time now—the management of their own resources that independent operators need to have. So in this case the act is being corrupted. The autonomy which the act enshrines is simply being corrupted by practice on the ground. So that simply does not stand up under argument. Paragraph (c) of the minister’s amendment states:
(c) the proposed new structure contained within the Emergency Services Authority’s Three Year Business Plan will ensure closer operational command and control links between ACT emergency services …
The South Australian model is often used as an example of the closer operational command and control links talked about in the minister’s amendment. In the South Australian model we have seen a single fire service by stealth, in practice created by having a unified command and control system. We now see that the South Australian model is failing. That highlights the fact that we have to ensure that our rural fire services and urban fire brigades are quite separate. They must be organised separately and they must have their own commands.
Having a unified command system and trying to mix volunteer RFS officers with full-time professional fire brigade officers really cannot work properly. We are talking about different services with different capabilities, different cultures and distinctly different roles and they have to be allowed to operate apart from one another. They must be able to operate in an interoperable fashion; that is, the two services have to be able to combine operations when they can. The two services have to be able to have common command and operational structures that enable them to undertake integrated operations on the fire ground when a mission requires that to occur, but they must still be structured and they must still be respected as stand-alone entities.
Each of those two services needs its own independent chief officer. The chief officer of the Rural Fire Service still needs his own headquarters and his own independent chain of command so that his organisation can execute the task for which it was designed, and the fire brigade needs the same. The chief officer, fire brigade needs his own command structure to be able to operate in urban areas and on the urban edge in accordance with the way in which that organisation is designed to operate and in accordance with the tradition of many decades which developed the culture that is so integral and important to the operation of the fire brigade.
The opposition rejects subparagraphs (a), (b) and (c) of the minister’s amendment. Paragraph (2) of his amendment goes without saying; it is motherhood and apple pie. Of course we congratulate ACT emergency services staff who are striving to keep our community safe. The problem is that under this restructure they find that that job is much harder. The opposition cannot support the government’s amendment.
MR CORBELL (Molonglo—Attorney-General, Minister for Police and Emergency Services and Minister for Planning) (11.43): I seek leave to move an amendment to my amendment.
MADAM TEMPORARY DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mrs Dunne): Have you circulated that amendment?
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .