Page 1680 - Week 05 - Tuesday, 4 May 2010
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
stress and uncertainty, any simplification of the act is well worth while. The Greens support the amendments on that basis.
The bill follows on from a review into emergency management governance arrangements. We are told that the amendments for debate today address a number of deficiencies that the review identified. However, the review has not been made publicly available. Because of this, we have read the bill as it stands and without the benefit of all the supporting documentation. When a document is directly related to amendments, debate would be enhanced if that document were made publicly available.
Having said that, I am pleased that this bill will require another review in five years time. Emergency management requires constant vigilance and we must ensure that the legislation is kept up to date so that it can be quickly and easily put into effect when required. I am particularly pleased, however, that the bill also requires that that review be tabled in the Assembly. This is a good move from the government. It adds openness and accountability into the process and I welcome that inclusion.
A key amendment made by the bill is to allow the emergency controller to act as a potential emergency is developing but before a state of emergency needs to be formally declared. This series of amendments will free up the controller to take preventive action that will save life and property. Currently, the operation of the act creates some uncertainty about what action can be taken in the lead-up to an emergency.
There are key examples of where a controller may need to act but where a state of emergency has not been declared. These illustrate the need for these amendments well. For example, on days of a catastrophic fire danger warning, the interests of Canberrans will be best served if the controller can act instead of waiting for a bushfire to actually arrive on our doorstep. That is the uncertain situation that the current legislation potentially creates. The amendment is a responsible one that allows for preventive action to take place.
The powers of an emergency controller are necessarily broad. They are able to order movement of people and take control of property and essential infrastructure. Clearly, these are all practical actions that the controller must be free to undertake during a developing emergency. They must not be retarded by unnecessary processes that take up valuable time.
As the scrutiny of bills committee has picked up, human rights would be engaged where a controller is required to use their emergency powers. For example, where a controller orders an evacuation, the right to freedom of movement is engaged. The committee requested that the minister respond and justify the human rights interference.
At this point, it is helpful to return to the words the minister used to describe this bill. He said that the amendments help to achieve “intuitive simplicity”. It certainly is intuitive that at times of emergency people need to be ordered about. People will respond well to a clear direction from someone in a position of authority. It is also intuitive that where an emergency—
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video