Page 1859 - Week 05 - Thursday, 6 May 2010
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
change to the emergency management framework within the territory and will provide more flexibility in both how the territory plans for and responds to any given emergency event or situation.
The first benefit of this decoupling is that it will allow a controller to be appointed in those situations where strategic operational oversight is needed but where declaring a state of emergency would be impracticable or unwarranted. I refer to my earlier comments in this regard.
The second benefit is that it will allow a controller to be appointed in situations where it is likely that a state of emergency will need to be declared but the event is yet to fully impact upon the territory. The appointment of a controller in this situation will allow for the planning of both response and recovery in advance of the emergency occurring.
The appointment framework for the emergency controller also includes a mechanism that requires a review of an appointment by the Chief Minister no later than 48 hours after the appointment is made. The appointment of an emergency controller also ceases no later than seven days after it is made or if a state of emergency is declared. I must stress that this does not mean that the emergency controller cannot be reappointed should the emergency situation still be ongoing. These review and automatic cessation of appointment provisions have been included so that the need for an emergency controller is considered on a regular basis during an emergency.
I note that the scrutiny committee has provided comments in relation to this part of the bill. I thank the committee for its comments, and I would like to address those comments briefly. The first comment the committee has made is in relation to the human rights implications of the controller’s powers when there is no declared state of emergency. I would point out that these same comments were made in relation to the existing powers when they were introduced into the Assembly back in 2004.
The Human Rights Act recognises that few rights are absolute and that limits may be placed on rights with the aim of balancing competing interests. The government’s view is that the specialist powers that may be exercised by the emergency controller are reasonable and justifiable in the circumstances. The provisions strike a balance between the individual’s rights and the public interest in ensuring the protection and preservation of life, property and the environment in emergency situations. Additionally, the bill provides for remedies to be sought if a person suffers loss as a result of these emergency powers being exercised.
The second comment the committee has made is in relation to the operation of proposed subsection 150C(3). In case members are not aware, this subsection states that subsection 150C(1) operates despite any other territory law. The committee stated that it believes that such a provision is an entrenchment provision and that the effect of such is to constrain the Assembly in its ability to make laws for the territory.
I do not agree with the comments the committee has made, and I would like to reiterate what I have said to the committee in my written response to the scrutiny comments. This provision does not have the effect—I repeat, does not have the
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video