Page 1986 - Week 06 - Thursday, 9 June 2016
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
gets there first and knocks them down, what is the need then for a Fire & Rescue unit to attend? If you are not happy with the way the RFS puts fires out, then say so. But I do not think there is anything in the amendments that clarifies this.
There is also concern about how who is in charge is determined. On pages 11 and 12 of the explanatory statement it is stated:
… in relation to fires in the bushfire abatement zone, the service responsible for incident control will be decided by the officers in charge on scene from each service liaising with each other and jointly determining the priorities and strategies for the management of the fire, including incident control.
If there is a fire going and two services have turned up, the first thing we do is have a powwow about who is the boss. It goes on to say:
If agreement is not quickly achieved on scene the officer in charge on scene from each Service must immediately contact their respective Chief Officer.
So out come the mobile phones or we are on the two-ways, “Hey, boss, we can’t agree with the other guy about who is in charge.” The explanatory statement continues:
The Chief Officers will then liaise with each other …
Just remember that there is a fire burning; it states:
The Chief Officers will then liaise with each other and appoint an Incident Controller and other Incident Management Team (IMT) roles as required.
So the people not on the scene will determine who is in charge. It is almost ludicrous except it is here in the explanatory statement. We are about to pass legislation that effects this. The explanatory statement says:
If, in the opinion of either Chief Officer the fire is likely to escalate, or has escalated, into a complex incident threatening life, property or significant environmental assets, or multiple incidents are occurring that may compete for resources the fire will be under the control of an off-scene located IMT.
It goes on to say:
The Review found that these procedures for determining which service has control of a fire in the bushfire abatement zone are cumbersome and potentially problematic.
But I am not sure the amendments that are being proposed address this. I think these are very serious issues. All of us in this place should consider the seriousness of this. You are being asked to vote on legislation this evening that gives power to the commissioner’s concept of operations. We are doing this backwards. It says in here that this gives effect to the commissioner’s concept of operations. Perhaps the minister and I have read them but I cannot imagine many others in this place have.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video