Page 3656 - Week 10 - Wednesday, 26 August 2009
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
The crux of my bill, then, is the nature of the warnings themselves. As I have noted, if there is a forecast of a fire danger index of 25 or greater, a bushfire warning will be required. Warnings will be required to comprise a number of components: the fire danger index, the relevant bushfire activity category, a warning that is associated with that level of bushfire activity, the area, if any, to which the warning applies, an analysis of the potential for changes in conditions, the consequences of any changes for people and property, and sources of further information.
There are three additional components that may come into effect, depending on the level of the fire danger index. If the index is forecast to be between 25 and 49, in other words, a very high warning, the warning will ask people to decide whether they are equipped to defend their properties or whether they should evacuate. If the index is forecast to be 50 or greater, therefore in the extreme category, the warning will say that, if people have not prepared themselves and their property and are not able to defend their property, they should evacuate. Warnings for either of these scenarios will provide the location of evacuation centres.
I mention in these components two additional matters. Firstly, there are bushfire activity categories. The bill sets out the hierarchy of bushfire activity categories. Secondly, there are warnings that are associated with each activity category. The combination of each bushfire activity category and associated warnings is linked to the specific range of the bushfire danger index.
This aspect of the bill has required extensive consideration. On the one hand, there is the need to have a properly differentiated warning for each level of bushfire activity. On the other hand, there is the imperative to provide useful information at each level of warning without being overly complex. I emphasise the analogy of this approach to the approach used for cyclone warnings where there is a combination of numerical levels of intensity and associated cyclone characteristic.
I have not attempted to prescribe actual warnings for each bushfire warning level in the bill. I took the view that putting specific wording for each warning into an act was too prescriptive and would not allow any flexibility to take account of particular circumstances of different situations. And I am very grateful to parliamentary counsel for this very useful advice on this matter.
There are two other matters I need to mention. There are provisions covering how warnings shall be promulgated. That will be with the assistance of the local media, and I compliment the government for having made those arrangements through MOU since the 2003 disaster. And there is specific provision for developments in communications technologies and how these can be used to disseminate warnings. As we all know, that is a moveable feast and the technology seems to change every day.
This is not an unusual way to give a warning. Every weather forecast now contains a UV index and a warning. The reporting of the fire danger index will work on the same format.
There are provisions in the bill requiring public education programs. Again, the details for these programs are quite general. That will be up to the government of the
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .