Page 2843 - Week 07 - Wednesday, 29 June 2011
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
What is not clear to me out of that, and what does I think remain open, is exactly what the consequence of some of those changes will be, and whether this is some sort of restructure, whether it is a redesign of the unit, simply a name change, or some other variation. Either way, it is a point of interest for the Assembly to understand exactly what is being proposed here in what is a very critical area of public policy.
Like Mr Smyth, I have been approached by a range of stakeholders about this matter, from environmental groups, environmentalists and those who have an interest in the national parks through to those involved in the volunteer fire-fighting service, and what has been clear to me through all of those contacts is that there is a strong view that the current arrangement is working extremely well. This can be a very difficult area, particularly around fuel management when it comes to environmentalists and fire managers. We have seen some very unfortunate conflict in the past in places, with strong views put either way.
I think that particularly underlines the strength of the feeling on this when what might be described as both sides of that argument are actually putting a very positive view on the current arrangement and talking about how it has been very effective in addressing fire management issues, fire suppression and fuel management, and at the same time has been achieving good biodiversity outcomes in terms of undertaking that fuel reduction in a way that is sensitive to biodiversity outcomes in the ACT.
I would like to step back a moment and look at the history of these issues. I guess the important part of the history is of course the inquiry into the operational response into the 2003 bushfires undertaken by Mr Ron McLeod. One section of the inquiry focused on the importance of the relationship between fire management and land management agencies.
Two specific and important factors were listed in support of having an arrangement where they are co-located. Firstly, McLeod reported that such a co-location serves to reinforce the point that fire prevention and suppression are an integral part of the job of land managers. The point made is that fire prevention is not something for land managers to assign to someone else; it is not a separate task to land management and the two should be done together.
Secondly, Mr McLeod highlighted the practical value of having people who work in parks gain an intimate knowledge of the land they manage. There is a particular quote that I would like to read from Mr McLeod, and he said:
This is of inestimable value in a fire emergency when local knowledge and an understanding of the terrain and what it contains are at a premium.
That is some pretty strong language in that quote. That practical knowledge that comes from co-location is of “inestimable value”; that is, the value is too great to calculate. In assessing Mr Smyth’s motion I have certainly kept in mind the value that Mr McLeod’s report ascribes to co-location of fire management and land management, and the Greens are certainly wary of any movement that diminishes the practical benefits of co-location. It is an issue we take very carefully.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video