Page 2844 - Week 07 - Wednesday, 29 June 2011
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
I would now like, in the context of looking at some of the history, to look at the strategic bushfire management plan. Core principle No 1 in the strategic plan, on page 2, states:
Rapid detection and aggressive initial attack are fundamental to prevent fires from growing in size.
Later in the strategic plan, at page 5, the statement is made:
The Plan recognises the key role of the Department of Territory and Municipal Services in fire management in the ACT. TAMS, through its business unit Parks, Conservation and Lands are responsible for the management of 73% of the area of the ACT and provide suppression capability through Parks Rural Fire Brigade.
In that context—and, as I said, having received now approaches from a number of stakeholders—it is worth reflecting on some of those comments from concerned stakeholders. What they have said to me is:
… the move will completely undermine a long term fire management regime which is our best chance of avoiding future massive fires in the ACT.”
Another comment was that it is:
… a huge step backwards from the current capable and effective fire and environmental management regime.
And, finally, it “will take us back to the pre 2003 days”. These comments are premised on an understanding that the fire management unit will be dismantled. I am quite conscious of this, and I have listened very carefully to the comments that Mr Corbell has made today in the debate and also that he made in the letter that he sent me. Certainly, from an ACT Greens point of view, we are mindful of the fact that the severity and frequency of bushfires is likely to increase in the ACT region as a result of global warming, and that fire management plans should incorporate measures to protect biodiversity and be consistent with ecosystem maintenance.
These are actually statements that come from our policy document in this area and they are issues that we place a real importance on. I guess with the various bits of evidence that are on the table, it is quite challenging to operate from what the stakeholders are telling us and then absorb what the minister is telling us and draw a conclusion from that. On that basis I have sought to move an amendment to Mr Smyth’s motion in which I have removed the word “abolish”. I guess I take on face value the attorney’s assurance on that, and I have instead inserted the word “restructure” in section (1)(d). I will put that down as a more neutral term. That could encompass a range of possible outcomes. I have then substituted paragraph (2), where we offer the minister the benefit of doubt and actually provide an opportunity for the Assembly to assess this matter.
I listened very carefully to Mr Corbell’s comments about needing to trust the senior executive staff and not micromanage, and I have a great deal of sympathy with that
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video