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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 05 Hansard (Thursday, 13 May 2004) . . Page.. 1884 ..

There is probably more work to be done in refining the statutory requirements of preparation of a bushfire fuel management plan. My great concern is that although the process has included many points of view in the past, in a political context of extreme fear, the processes, which did take in a range of expertise, will be narrowed.

As I say, in this context and without the requirements to bring in all the relevant expertise, I am not comfortable with a proposal to let a bushfire fuel management plan stand in for a licence assessment. I understand that this is a bit controversial, but I say again that it is certainly not in the interests of a nature reserve to be burnt out, and so the aims of bushfire prevention and nature conservation are not at odds. The thing is to ensure that the knowledge of the particular ecology is considered, and there is no guarantee in the bushfire fuel management plan process that this will occur.

The extra point I will make here, although I think I have made it before, is that, if you in fact do hazard reduction burning without an understanding of the ecology, you can actually end up with a more flammable undergrowth because you end up only with those species that can resist the fire, and that can actually result in greater fire risk.

MR STANHOPE (Chief Minister, Attorney-General, Minister for Environment and Minister for Community Affairs) (10.02): The government will oppose the amendment. Paragraph 60I (d) would make land clearing lawful if it is carried out in accordance with a bushfire fuel management plan prepared under the Bushfire Act 1936. The bushfire fuel management plan is prepared by land managers through a public consultation process and in conjunction with the Bushfire Council. The parts that relate to nature reserves are prepared by the ACT Parks and Conservation Service under the supervision of the Conservator of Flora and Fauna.

The amendment proposed by Ms Tucker would require that virtually any activity under a fuel management plan would have to be individually licensed before it could be carried out, that is, those charged with carrying out the work already approved by the conservator would have to return to the conservator and once again ask for permission to do so. Once again, the Greens seek to add a needless extra layer of administration in the name of nature conservation that would have absolutely no effect and add absolutely no value.

The Greens have said, in effect, that the process for making the fuel management plan does not guarantee that the regime proposed will be appropriately sensitive to nature conservation values. Their solution is to involve the conservator in licensing these activities, but since it is the conservator in the first place, aided by the professional conservationists in the parks and conservation service, that makes the plan, there simply would be nothing added by this further step. It would be simply asking the conservator essentially to re-license a plan that she or he had already approved. The government opposes the amendment on that basis.

MRS DUNNE (10.04): The Liberal opposition will be opposing Ms Tucker’s amendment, for essentially the reasons outlined by the Chief Minister and Minister for Environment. Ms Tucker has expressed a concern about how we put together bushfire fuel management plans and says that we need to have a bushfire fuel ecologist involved in that process. If we want to do that, let’s amend the legislation that looks after bushfire

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