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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 06 Hansard (Tuesday, 22 June 2004) . . Page.. 2345 ..

The other issue I would like to raise is compliance and auditing of the bushfire hazard management targets. We think, again, that the responsibilities and the time lines in respect of the compliance that has to be achieved and the auditing of bushfire hazard targets, have to be strengthened. We also think that the making of the strategic bushfire management plan by the minister might in some cases require some clearance in the Assembly under clause 75, when there may be differences of opinion about what constitutes a very important bushfire hazard target and what does not, particularly if there is a difference of opinion between stakeholders on what those targets should be.

Disaster plans: we are very concerned that, under clause 147, the emergency plan does not adequately detail the requirement for developing disaster plans to meet the credible threats that this community does face. Again, clause 147 is very useful. The entire chapter relevant to the ACT emergency plan is well written and it is going to work well, but I think we can add value to that by whacking in these disaster plans. (Extension of time granted.)

I know, by instinct and through discussion with the authority and with many of the senior officers in the emergency services, that they will probably write the disaster plans—certainly the people we have now in service will. However, the completion of these plans, as part of an otherwise useful chapter on emergency planning, is so important as to warrant benchmarking in the legislation. To that end, we want to see the legislation benchmark the sorts of plans that should be written as subsets of the emergency plan. We have another 12 or so amendments that are aimed at making important improvements but I will speak to those when I move them later.

In conclusion, this is a good and very useful bill and we welcome its passage today and its implementation as soon as possible. It is, however, somewhat disappointing that it has taken 17 months to get to this point to finalise the debate. This was a consequence, I believe, of vital time wasted and some indecision. Warnings to the community, community information, responsibilities with respect to planning needs, compliance, auditing and disaster plan designations are the areas of weakness that the opposition believes should be addressed and about which it will therefore move amendments.

However, Mr Deputy Speaker, it is pleasing that at least the legislation will provide much clearer direction, much clearer benchmarks and reforms for organisations that were once thought to be cumbersome. With a few amendments, it will also provide clearer guidance to, and inspire greater confidence in, the community and, most importantly, the men and women of the emergency services. I commend the bill to the house.

MR HARGREAVES (5.35): Mr Deputy Speaker, Mr Pratt talked about a couple of issues: the government being inactive, ineffective and indecisive. I find there is some inconsistency in that, when those opposite criticise the government for picking up so quickly on the recommendations of the McLeod report. In my view, you cannot have it both ways. You can criticise the government for acting quickly, perhaps, but certainly not for being indecisive.

Mr Pratt talked about the government being inactive and ineffective. While he also qualified his remarks later on by saying they were not directed at the front-line workers and all that sort of stuff, I have to say that the emergency response was nothing short of

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