Page 1108 - Week 03 - Thursday, 22 March 2012
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
The description of this bill varies, depending on which document you read. The bill and the explanatory statement have, at various places, Emergencies (Commissioner Directions) Amendment Bill 2012, whereas the presentation speech has Emergencies (Commissioner’s Directions) Bill 2012, indicating that it would be a new act. Unfortunately, the explanatory statement overview then has the Emergencies (Commissioners Directions) Bill without any date. There is also an absence of a number of apostrophes through the statement. I regret the poor quality control which I see in these formal documents. I trust that the minister will seek to improve this in future. With those comments, the opposition will be supporting the bill.
MR RATTENBURY (Molonglo) (10.54): The Greens will be supporting this bill also. It reduces the possibility for a siloed and uncoordinated response to an emergency, which is something certainly worthy of support. Ultimately, the changes will put the ACT in a stronger position in the future if and when emergencies develop. The attorney has described how the improvements have been identified following recent Australian disasters in Victoria and Queensland. These disasters, of course, involved both fire and flood, but the lessons learnt have been similar and have pointed to the need for centralised operational control when a particular emergency requires the response of more than one of the four emergency units.
In the ACT we have a chief officer for each of the four key response units: the Ambulance Service, the Fire Brigade, the Rural Fire Service and the SES. For most of the emergencies that develop a response from only one of the units will be required. In these times the relevant chief officers will have full control and decision-making responsibility. At the other end of the scale is a declared state of emergency where an emergency controller is appointed and has the power to direct the movement of people and infrastructure.
In between these two extremes there is the potential for an emergency that is not so serious as to require a declaration of a state of emergency, but will still require attendance by two or more units. It is this scenario that the bill caters for. The bill will give the Emergency Services Commissioner clear power to require a chief officer to undertake response or recovery action. This power does not currently exist, which leaves open the possibility for a siloed and uncoordinated response. The amendments reduce that possibility by vesting the ultimate power to muster and direct resources with the ESA commissioner. On that note, and in conclusion, the Greens support the bill.
MR CORBELL (Molonglo—Attorney-General, Minister for Police and Emergency Services and Minister for the Environment and Sustainable Development) (10.56), in reply: I thank members for their support of this important bill. I would like to take the opportunity to illustrate why this bill is needed and why the government has identified the requirement to provide the Emergency Services Commissioner with the necessary authority to give directions to the chief officers of the emergency services.
Firstly, I need to emphasise that this bill did not result from any occurrence or deficiencies of the emergency services. The territory has, and continues to be, served with a high level of skill and professionalism by its emergency services and its
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video