Page 1678 - Week 05 - Tuesday, 4 May 2010
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
But what about the third change? As far as I can tell, all that is happening is that the Emergency Management Committee is being replaced by the new group titled the Security and Emergency Management Senior Officials Group. The overall reporting structure for emergency management remains the same: we will still have cabinet; we will still have the Security and Emergency Management Committee of cabinet; we will still have the Security and Emergency Management Branch. If there were inadequacies, inconsistencies, duplication and ambiguity in the emergency management governance arrangements before, then—surprise, surprise—these problems clearly will remain after these amendments have been put in place. In my judgement, and based on what I know about the emergency management arrangements in the ACT, I consider that the minister’s rhetoric on this matter has been extreme. Given the significance of the presentation speeches and associated material, I suggest that the minister should be far more careful with the words that he chooses.
I also am intrigued by the title of the body that is intended to replace the Emergency Management Committee. We will now have the Security and Emergency Management Senior Officials Group, SEMSOG. What a mouthful, and what a silly and pretentious title. This title tells me that someone is trying to make something sound important. I see no need, for instance, for the words “senior officials” to be included in this title—unless there is another motive. Why are they there? Is it to distinguish this body from a meeting of junior officials? Recently we have seen what this minister thinks of junior officials when dealing with issues to do with insulation. I believe that we would not lose any of the sense of what is being sought by describing such a grouping as the security and emergency management group. It is simple; it is effective; it is precise. Indeed, a junior officer with a particular expertise may well be included in such a group, as would be appropriate.
I raised some matters with the minister’s advisers during our briefing on this bill. I have received advice from the minister about those, and I thank him for that advice, which turned up, I think, late yesterday.
I need to comment on my concerns on two of these matters. The first concerns the wording of proposed new section 150A(5) where I question the reason for this convoluted wording and why this section is needed in any event. Given the requirement established in proposed section 150A(1), I consider that paragraph (5) is superfluous. I will read the paragraph for members; it is quite an interesting paragraph. Paragraph 150A(5) says:
The Chief Minister may be satisfied that an emergency is likely to happen if the Chief Minister is satisfied that an event that has happened or is happening, or a circumstance that exists, gives rise to the likelihood of an emergency.
If anyone can work out what that actually means, I would be grateful for assistance. If you read, for instance, section 150A(1), you will see that it seems to make paragraph (5) superfluous. Section 150A(1) simply says:
This section applies if the Chief Minister is satisfied that––
(a) an emergency has happened, is happening or is likely to happen …
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video