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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2003 Week 13 Hansard (26 November) . . Page.. 4702 ..

MR PRATT (continuing):

I will take some time to outline these authorities to my fellow members of the Assembly. It should be noted that, for simplicity and familiarity reasons, the model proposed for the bushfire authority is also the foundation model for the new authorities for ACT emergency services and the metropolitan fire and ambulance authority, the other two authorities that we intend to see created. Under the proposed bill, the bushfire authority would establish a board of experienced members of the community who would be appointed by the minister. These board members would be salaried and report directly to the minister, advising the minister on all aspects of bushfire through analysis, strategic planning and performance standards. Additionally, they would advise the minister on all aspects of the bushfire authority's planning, operations, organisation and training.

However, they would not interfere in the day-to-day running of the bushfire authority. The board would appoint a CEO, who may be titled the chief fire officer or the chief bushfire officer, a detail to be discussed and confirmed at another time. But they would be obligated to leave this person, the CEO, unhindered to execute operations, tactical planning and decision making.

A person-let's call him or her the CFO-would be responsible to the board for the operation, supervision and tasking, training and management of all bushfire brigades and units, a strict, straight line of command with strict, straight supervisory powers. During the preseason, season and post-season firefighting and preparations, the CFO would set clear tasks to the bushfire brigade captains. Then, the CFO would be expected to delegate total responsibility for operational decisions in their areas to the brigade captains; that is, the brigade captains would be left alone to fight the bushfire battles on their patch, backed up and supported by the CFO, but not with the CFO reaching down and micromanaging. That is a clear advantage in the model that we are offering.

The brigades-our men and women in the field-would be trusted to make the critical decisions on the ground, where they are, not bureaucrats who are nowhere near the ground, who are not out fighting the fires, who are doing a very important job elsewhere but they are not there to understand the dynamics of what is happening on the ground. What must be ensured if morale and trust within the services are to be restored is that there is a successful and direct chain of command and operational lines of communication, unhindered by bureaucrats, administrators and armchair admirals.

Again, that is what has come out of our consultation with the people on the ground-the firefighters and the emergency services personnel. Just in case the government does not understand this concept, it is called consultation. Consultation has also led us to incorporate into this bill an advisory council for each of the boards, comprising a wide range of industry and community stakeholders with a legitimate interest in planning. The role of the council would be purely advisory. (Extension of time granted.)

The Department of Justice and Community Safety would be tasked with providing administrative and logistical support to the authorities and their units. The department would advise the boards and their chief executive officers of budgets, acquisitions and all other aspects of financial management. JACS would have an important role to play. It would be there underneath to support the agencies and to give firm, clear administrative advice to all of the boards and their agencies on manpower, budgets and the acquisition of equipment. But it would be a support role, not a supervisory role, and it would not

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