Page 3642 - Week 12 - Tuesday, 28 October 2014
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
multi-agency incident manual. Thus the use of this terminology will mean that emergency services officers will be able to easily understand processes when they travel interstate for emergency support as well as when interstate officers help with our emergency management.
My office and I have had direct discussions with the United Firefighters Union and we know that they have worked with the government to achieve agreement that this new definition and explanatory material clarifies the commissioner’s powers and responsibilities and that this is acceptable to all parties involved. That is an assurance that is important to me because it is critical that there is clarity across all of the key stakeholders in this sort of discussion.
I would now like to turn to issues around the aligning of various plans in this space. In terms of the issues around the alignment of plans, the bill introduces a requirement for the commissioner to consult with the Conservator of Flora and Fauna on the strategic bushfire management plan and also to consider its impacts on any plans of management under the Planning and Development Act. This includes land management plans and agreements.
The commissioner’s response to the conservator’s comments is required for a report that must now be given to the minister as well as tabled in the Assembly, along with the draft strategic bushfire management plan. Of most interest to conservationists and leaseholders is clause 16, which reverses the current legislated priority where in the case of inconsistency a plan of management under the Planning and Development Act overrides the strategic bushfire management plan. However, new section 77A instead gives the strategic bushfire management plan precedence over other plans of management. I will come back to this issue as it is causing some consternation.
Also of interest in the bill is that government land management agencies must continue to update their bushfire operational plans every two years. But private leaseholders will now be required to prepare a bushfire operational plan even if they already have a land management agreement, but will only need to review their BOPs every five years. This aligns with the requirement to update land management agreements every five years.
In relation to the issue of the strategic bushfire management plan overriding other plans of management, there is a concern that this means that plans that have been worked through collaboratively between land managers and the communities may not be given effect. Given that the strategic bushfire management plan lasts for five years until it is reviewed and replaced, there is a question of the longevity of the plans of management and how it may work operationally.
I have sought advice from TAMS about this issue. I understand that although in theory this could be an issue, practically, any conflicts between plans are worked through collaboratively between the ESA and the land manager to ensure that key biodiversity values are protected as far as practicable.
However, to further clarify this in the legislation, I think it would be of considerable use to add some further explanatory text into the explanatory statement in relation to
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video