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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 06 Hansard (Tuesday, 22 June 2004) . . Page.. 2356 ..

The urban brigades do have some rural capability in terms of pumpers and light units and they may well be the first unit to respond, and that would be appropriate. It might be a volunteer unit; it might be both. But what we have is this transition, this slow or, in some cases, quick upgrading of what is happening on the ground so that we have responses appropriate to the emergencies as they evolve.

When we look at how we’ve defined in 5.1 what is a built-up area, what is a rural area, what is the city area and then the fire response and control, what we’ve now got is the appropriate mechanism to ensure that we have this transition either up the chain or down the chain, as emergencies pass, to ensure that Canberra is protected in all of its essence—whether it’s protecting a farmhouse out in Tidbinbilla Valley or whether it’s protecting a person’s home in Kambah.

So I look forward to operating under this—and I’m sure Mr Corbell will look forward to operating under it—new law when it’s passed later today. I simply close by saying that the opposition has a number of amendments. I don’t believe they detract from the bill at all; I think they enhance the bill and its operation. It will be interesting to see which get up. I know the government has a few amendments to those amendments.

We’re very pleased to be debating this bill today. We are pleased that it doesn’t reflect the McLeod model. We are a bit disappointed that it has taken this long but note the amount of work that went into it and, with that comment, in no way reflect on any of the individuals that actually helped put this bill together. Mr Speaker, the opposition will be supporting this Emergency Services Bill 2004 and look forward to its coming into operation on 1 July this year.

MR CORBELL (Minister for Health and Minister for Planning) (6.15): Mr Deputy Speaker, this bill represents one of the most significant changes to the governance and operational organisation of our emergency services since self-government. It is fitting that it is done in the context of the disaster of January 2003 and demonstrates, I believe, the willingness of the government, the Assembly and the community to learn from the experiences of January 2003 and ensure that we have a more robust structure that can respond to such incidents more effectively into the future.

It is a pity that Mr Smyth chose to take a few cheap shots in his contribution to the debate this evening. For example, Mr Smyth suggested that this was a bit like Mr Pratt’s bill. Actually, far from it, Mr Deputy Speaker! Indeed, Mr Pratt’s bill had the worst level of governance you could possibly imagine, with four separate boards each running their own service, with the confused accountability arrangements that would arise as a result.

Unlike this bill, which ensures that governance, accountability and command are clear, Mr Pratt’s bill would have created a more confused situation than ever. In addition, Mr Pratt’s bill also confused the issues of effective governance of the organisation and I think that also would have created a worse situation than before.

Of course it’s worth making the point, if Mr Smyth wants to play politics on this issue, that the structure that responded to both the 2001 and 2003 bushfire emergencies was the structure that he and his government put in place. I think no more needs to be said on that particular matter.

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