Page 510 - Week 03 - Wednesday, 14 March 2007

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


I conclude by stating that the new structure for ESA resolved some issues relating to the current structure and will ensure that the agency can focus on operational matters. The new structure will serve both the organisation and the community. It is time for us to stop debating the structure of the ESA and to let the agency, with its new commissioner, get on with its core business of protecting the ACT from emergencies.

MR STEFANIAK (Ginninderra—Leader of the Opposition) (11.27): It always amazes me why ministers and other people in this place do not listen to the experts on the ground. We have a huge groundswell of opposition to an administrative proposal from people at the coalface, in many instances people such as Val Jeffery, who has been fighting fires for many years.

Mrs Burke: He does not know anything.

MR STEFANIAK: That is right. As my colleague Mrs Burke just said, he does not know anything. There seems to be a tendency amongst bureaucracies to downplay or ignore the opinions of people at the coalface and others. In the past few months seven fairly senior people resigned from or left the emergency services area. Surely that should sound warning bells for any government. Surely it should sound warning bells for this government when it gets an independent agency such as McLeod to prepare a report and to make recommendations. The coronial inquest that ran for nearly four years and that had over 90 days of hearings prepared major recommendations that basically backed up Mr McLeod’s recommendations.

Surely that would indicate to the government that putting the ESA back in the department was not such a good idea; that it should be a stand-alone and independent department. Clearly, that is what the practitioners in this area want to see happen. It does not have to be a lot more expensive. A body that is independent and that is run properly can achieve efficiencies.

Mr Corbell’s amendment to the motion states that his government fully or partially implements 51 of the 73 recommendations. That is good so far as it goes but it neglects the key recommendation, one of the key points of concern to all those people affected by the fires and to all those at the coalface. This decision has caused much angst and anger among volunteers and other emergency service workers. Surely it is time for this arrogant government to stop and think.

Earlier Mr Corbell said that the commissioner, the deputy commissioner, or whoever, had a direct link to him. He said that he had met with the commissioner on 15 occasions and that he does not like the present chain of command. There are a number of layers of reporting. I have seen the bureaucratic structure and I, like Mr Smyth, have been a minister. I will give Minister Corbell an example of how, despite all the best will in the world by the minister or the bureaucrats concerned, things can go wrong in a second. I think there are six layers of reporting. Once we get out of the emergency services structure and we get into JACS I think someone has to report to a deputy CEO, then to the CEO and then to the minister. The chain of command shows a little dotted line from the deputy commissioner to the minister. The minister has met with the commissioner on 15 occasions, and no doubt he will meet with him on another 15 occasions, but that will not necessarily do any good.


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