Page 1863 - Week 05 - Thursday, 6 May 2010
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
Emergency Services) (11.38): As I have previously indicated in the in-principle debate, the government believes that excessive caution is appropriate in relation to these types of powers. These powers are wide ranging. These provisions of the bill and the act itself allow the executive government, in the Chief Minister, to appoint an emergency controller who will have broad-ranging powers to deal with the management of an emergency. They are extraordinary powers and the ground on which the grant of those powers is made should be broad and should allow significant discretion to allow the executive government to act to protect life, property and the environment.
The provisions of subsection 150A(5) are replicated, as Mr Smyth notes, in sections 156(5) and 151(4) of the Emergencies Act that deal with a declaration of a state of emergency itself. For no other reason it should be consistent. I think that consistency is important. The grounds should be same regardless of whether it is a declaration of a state of emergency or not.
Mr Smyth is not deleting those other provisions. Firstly, I would make the point that we should have consistency across the act. It should be in the same terms. Secondly and perhaps more importantly—going back to the point I made earlier—the clause provides for an explanation of the grounds on which the Chief Minister can be satisfied that an emergency is likely to happen. That is what it does. It interprets that power. It refers to the Chief Minister being satisfied that an emergency is likely to happen if, in his view, an event has happened or is happening or a circumstance exists that gives rise to the likelihood of that emergency.
This may involve circumstances or information that may not be readily apparent to others, may not be available to others. Therefore, a question could be raised as to why the Chief Minister is exercising those powers. So I think that on the grounds of excessive caution—and in these circumstances excessive caution is appropriate because you are talking about a bill, an act, that is designed to engage with a whole range of circumstances and we cannot always predict exactly what the nature of them will be—it is appropriate to retain the clause. If Mr Smyth was so concerned about it he could delete, and should be deleting, the other provisions of the act that do exactly the same thing, but he is not.
MR RATTENBURY (Molonglo) (11.41): The debate on this provision is an odd one, I must say. I think I do agree with Mr Smyth that the language of the provision is rather turgid. I think it probably warrants some amendment to improve its readability. But at this stage the Greens will not be supporting Mr Smyth’s amendment. I do think that the provision is based on existing wording in the act. It also appears in section 156(4). It does require simplification and if we are to make some amendments, we should be doing that consistently throughout the act. I think it probably warrants a bit further consideration.
I am basically concerned that if we simply drop out this provision without addressing the provisions in section 156(4) and related provisions, there is the potential for some unintended consequences. On that basis we will not be able to support the amendment. But I am happy to flag that we are quite open to looking at further improvement to the act because I think, as this debate has illustrated—I think anybody listening to this
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video