Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2003 Week 8 Hansard (19 August) . . Page.. 2787 ..

MR SMYTH (continuing):

cooperation with the helicopters. I think we need to make sure that we get that answer right as well.

I note that recommendation 16 is agreed to: "the ACT Bushfire Service should seek a joint agreement with the NSW Rural Fire Service". I do not think that is a bad thing, but is that in conflict with recommendation 53, which actually says we should go with the Victorian model. If we are going to work more closely with New South Wales, but we are going to be organised along the lines of Victoria, it strikes me that there is an inherent contradiction. I wonder whether enough questioning has been done of these recommendations.

We have to remember that the Chief Minister said he would accept all of these recommendations before he saw them. Maybe he had seen them, I do not know, but he accepted them, and now he is stuck with the position where, without actually giving due consideration to what is in this document, and some of the inherent contradictions that are in the McLeod report, we may be lumbered with a system that might not best serve the needs of the people of Canberra in coming fire seasons.

If we are going to have the reform-and I do not think any of us disagree that there should be reform-let's make sure we get it right. Let's not be hasty, noting that there is a fire season just around the corner.

Mr Speaker, I then go to recommendation 53, which says that the separate organisations that make up the emergency services group should be replaced by statutory authority. If you go to the model that McLeod puts forward in the report, it seems to say that ambulance will be off on its own and urban fire, rural fire and emergency services will be lumped together, with some small educational support unit. I would question that.

Contrary to the suggestion that we do not have any policies, we have put forward quite a coherent model that I note is very close to what the volunteer brigades association is now calling for. You have to question whether or not "build it bigger, build it better"is the better option. Again, we have said we are going to accept these without consideration, and I think that is incredibly bad process.

Mr Speaker, what Mr McLeod has recommended and what the Chief Minister is implementing today, I think in haste, derives-according to pages 1 and 65 of the McLeod report-from a strategic or systemic overview, not from dredging deeply into details. McLeod says, "Basically, it provides an overview of events: it does not deal in detail with the multitude of matters raised."If it is just a broad overview, and we have not dealt with the matters raised in detail, are we making the right decisions? I would put it to you that we need to consider that. I do not believe that, in many cases, the government response is the right one.

As we all know, Mr McLeod presented his report on Friday 1 August. Mr Stanhope had already foreshadowed acceptance of its recommendations and, accordingly, he announced on Monday 4 August that the recommendations had been accepted and would be implemented at once. You have to ask whether two days over the weekend-we got it on Friday and we have decided by Monday-were enough time to digest this report or whether we are acting in haste.

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .