Page 4122 - Week 11 - Wednesday, 16 Sept 2009
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
take account of it. If they also get it from the Bureau of Meteorology, that is a good thing. The Bureau of Meteorology is the most visited website in the country, and it is respected and trusted by people. It is about getting the message into people’s heads that this is important.
When the national system was announced last week, I caught the end of an interview on 2CN where one of the questions was “will this help?” I think the answer was something like “it will help if it is put out, but that is up to the politicians.” It should not be up to the politicians. It should simply go out when we receive the information. It is calculated every day. Often it is calculated the night before. It is put out the next morning. It should be calculated; it should be disseminated. That is all I am asking you to do. It is the national system. Have no doubt: what I propose is the national system of warnings.
What we do not have is the mechanism for automatic release. That is what I am proposing. And what we do not have is the automatic messaging system, which is an entirely different argument and something that we should get to in the fullness of time.
I think it is sad that we do not take this opportunity. If somebody wanted to move an amendment saying, “Try it for a year and then we will have a review,” that might be the way out of it. But I think the system that I have set up mirrors very closely the system that was set up. Change a few words and it is exactly the same. And the onus then is to ensure that we educate people to listen for these warnings, these bulletins, this information, every day so that they can start making decisions based on fact rather than making decisions that are too late when the fire reaches their doorstep.
I think it is a worthy bill. Clearly, it will go down this evening. I think that is a shame. I think it is up to the Assembly to actually be proactive in what we do. But, instead, the minister of the day will determine what people are told and when they get told that. That is what happened in 2003. The decision was not made to release this information. The information went out at 1.45 in the afternoon. That is a shame. This is not a debate about the new national warning system; it is about using it effectively, consistently and automatically to benefit the community.
I would ask people to reconsider their voting intentions. I think it is worthy. I think it is a good step forward, based on the work that has been done. I think that in years to come people will come to appreciate that this sort of automated system will have to be put in place because, if the proponents of the theory that more mega fires will appear and that we will have larger events and more of them are correct, then we really need to educate the population of Australia about what a wonderful tool the fire danger index is in determining the level of risk and threat to themselves and to their property.
Not to educate the population, not to have a system in place that daily feeds them this information so that they can start making decisions, I believe would put people at risk. It is only effective if you have it. It is only effective if you use it and you use it consistently. That is all I am asking. I commend the bill to the Assembly.
Question put:
That this bill be agreed to in principle.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .