Page 1991 - Week 06 - Thursday, 9 June 2016
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
for determining which service has control of a fire in the bushfire abatement zone are cumbersome and potentially problematic. Requiring the officers in charge from each service at a fire to attempt to mutually agree which service should have control is an unnecessary distraction for these officers at a time when their efforts would be better served by directing fire response operations. The existing requirement unnecessarily impedes timely decision making for fires in this crucial urban interface. The ACT Auditor-General’s 2013 Report into Bushfire Preparedness noted that it was essential in the ‘command and control’ environment of emergency management to have clarity on geographic responsibilities.
The ES then goes on to say:
The Review proposed that a single service be given specific responsibility for fire control and response planning in the bushfire abatement zone. While the Review did not seek to identify which service should be given this responsibility, the Chief Officer (F&R) and Chief Officer (RFS) have agreed that it is appropriate that the RFS have responsibility for planning and response in this area.
Accordingly the Bill removes the concept of the bushfire abatement zone from the Act for the purposes of operational planning and response.
Responsibility for fire planning and response will instead be determined by the allocation of RFS responsibility to the rural area and the allocation of Fire & Rescue responsibility to the built-up area.
It is very clear from the explanatory statement—and it is a pity that Mr Smyth did not read from it further—that the intent of this bill addresses the concern that he raised. It addresses the concern that he raised by allocating clear operational responsibility to each of the respective services through a very clear delineation in two demarcated areas, the built-up area and the rural area. The assertion by Mr Smyth that there is confusion or the continuation of an arrangement which the government review itself concluded was undesirable and which this bill is designed to fix is simply untenable.
I am very confident about the capacity of our emergency services to provide one of the best response capabilities in the country. I am also very confident that the reform arrangements in this bill are going to strengthen them further.
Let me turn to the issues around the Bushfire Council. The first amendment made by the bill is to reform the constitution and consultation role of the Bushfire Council. The Bushfire Council, as members would know, is a statutory body charged with providing advice to the minister and the commissioner. The bill is strengthening the membership of the council, first of all, by requiring an explicit requirement on the part of the minister to appoint a representative for rural interests—the interests of rural lessees—as well as to provide for representatives of the community at large and representatives of the community with an interest in relation to matters involving the natural environment. Currently, the act only obliges the minister to try to appoint these representatives. Instead there will be an explicit obligation on the part of the minister to do so. I think that is a good thing for the strength and diversity of the Bushfire Council.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video