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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2003 Week 13 Hansard (26 November) . . Page.. 4693 ..

MR HARGREAVES (continuing):

On a minor matter, I see that Mr Pratt's bill refers to the position of fire controller. This position does not exist-a matter which, I am sure, is capable of correction. Returning to more fundamental issues, there is a need to establish a single, strong, cohesive and decisive authority that is capable of effective operation in all situations and that is not fettered by undue interference by either political or bureaucratic activity. On that theme of bureaucratic activity, any legislative reform must surely take full account of the costs involved in establishing a new governance structure. The government has certainly done that and has reached the conclusion that it would be both inappropriate and expensive to have an authority managed by a board, let alone three authorities managed by three boards.

Who among us remember there being in the mid-1980s a health authority, a community health board and a hospitals board on which sat the former Chief Minster, Mrs Carnell? I was an employee of the then Capital Territory Health Commission, which became the ACT Health Authority at that time, and I have intimate knowledge of the management and bureaucratic chaos which ensued. That system only added an extra layer of bureaucratic burden, flick passed the responsibility for mediocrity, and added to the cost. It also delayed the implementation of sound recommendations which came up from time to time. The government will be pursuing a model that involves a single authority headed by a single person, a commissioner.

I would like to repeat the government's appreciation of Mr Pratt's efforts on this matter to date. However, for the reasons I have stated, the government will be opposing the bill.

MS TUCKER (4.13): The Greens will not be supporting this bill today, although I acknowledge that Mr Pratt has put a lot of work into the bill and I acknowledge that he took part in the round table I organised in an attempt to have a more collaborative and informed development of the question of how to reform management of our bushfire, urban fire, ambulance and emergency volunteer services.

I would also like to acknowledge that we have not progressed to the next stage following the round table, which is something for which I had taken responsibility. The main reason for that is that the new CEO has been appointed and only started work last week. I hope and anticipate that we will have further discussions together as a way of informing ourselves and developing in a constructive way the future management of these services.

Clearly, this is an important issue for the safety of territory residents. The main element of difference in Mr Pratt's approach is that it seeks to separate the board structure and elevate the power of the heads of the component service organisations. However, the government and the new commissioner are, as I understand it, engaging with stakeholders in the community as part of the process of developing the new model.

I have had several meetings with rural and urban fire service representatives and emergency services people. Originally, they were very concerned because they felt that they had been locked out of the process. They were not particularly impressed with Mr Pratt coming out with a bill at that time, because they felt that they had not been included in his thinking. Since then we have had a number of meetings-I understand that Mr Pratt has had them, too, and the government is having them as well-and, as far as I know, they do not feel any more that they have been locked out of the process.

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