Page 1679 - Week 05 - Tuesday, 4 May 2010
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
I am not sure what the extra words add. I am always concerned that at times of emergency you may have too much legislation. I note that the same wording is in the current act in sections 151(4) and 156(4). That does not necessarily mean that these words are necessarily correct or required. I will be moving an amendment to delete paragraph 150A(5) in the detail debate.
The second matter that I raise concerns proposed section 162(2). Again, I am not convinced that we need to put into legislation a requirement that an emergency controller cannot act in a particular way. This particular section says:
The emergency controller may not direct the person to undertake an operation in a particular way.
I am not convinced by the explanation given by the minister. There may be a reason for such a direction to occur. It might be a rare occurrence, but I do not think we should be ruling it out. I am not convinced that we need to put into legislation a requirement that the emergency controller cannot act in a particular way. I understand the logic underpinning the section: it is not acceptable for a controller who, for instance, may have a fire brigade background to direct an ambulance officer how to perform a specialised medical task. But you have to ask how likely that is to happen. At the same time, we are considering legislation dealing with emergencies—not what would be considered perhaps normal situations, but emergencies—where circumstances may change very quickly, where very quick responses may be required and where someone may be required to act outside their area of specialisation. The minister has not provided any justification for this limitation in his further advice. The whole point of having legislation dealing with emergencies is to provide a framework within which emergency services people can act. A limitation such as this does not seem appropriate.
A further issue is raised by comments the minister made in his presentation speech. The minister said that it is inappropriate for people who are not ACT government officials to provide advice to the Security and Emergency Management Committee of cabinet or to a territory controller. I find it hard to accept these limitations. There may be emergencies where very specialist knowledge and expertise are required. This expertise may not be available in the ACT government. For the minister to suggest this limitation on advice flowing to the relevant authorities during an emergency could well make a situation worse. This certainly would not be a good public policy outcome. Fortunately, this restriction is not in the act or this bill; I find it strange that the minister mentioned it at all.
In concluding, let me say that I also note that there are some minor errors in the explanatory statement, but I assume that the minister has found these and has had them corrected. With these comments, I commend the bill to the Assembly.
MR RATTENBURY (Molonglo) (12.24): The Greens will be supporting this Emergencies Amendment Bill. It is a bill that updates the existing act to introduce into the legislation what the minister has described as intuitive simplicity. Given that the Emergencies Act is a piece of legislation that will be turned to in times of immense
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video