Page 1329 - Week 04 - Wednesday, 24 March 2010
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
But what does this national system mean for my bill? It means that my approach in this bill is confirmed and reaffirmed. In the ACT, for example, we now see each day on the front page of our local newspaper, the Canberra Times, a diagram showing the fire rating for that day, and the website for the Emergency Services Agency also includes this diagram with some additional information about conditions. In part, that is what my bill intends should be the case. I say to the minister: “Now, that wasn’t very hard, was it?” It was not very complex either, Mr Speaker.
I should note that the adoption of the national system of warnings in 2009 by all jurisdictions in Australia has provided some progress in putting a common system in place for the preparation and promulgation of warnings. In my bill, however, I seek to deal with each of these matters to the extent that they remain unresolved in the national approach.
I should make some further comments on the speech made by Mr Corbell in response to my bill last year. Mr Corbell commended me for introducing my bill. Thank you, minister. He then proceeded to rubbish the bill, particularly with respect to what he described as the confusion that it would cause. A close reading of Mr Corbell’s comments show that they are simply concocted nonsense. In some places, the minister was confused, and that is often the case. In some places, it is hard to understand why the minister said what he said. Mr Corbell said the proposals in my bill were impractical, unworkable and contrary to the nationally agreed warning framework. I challenge Mr Corbell to substantiate each of those claims. Indeed, his suggestion that they are contrary to the national framework is ridiculous.
My proposals are based on the nationally agreed framework. They simply extend the framework to require that a bushfire warning be given if certain conditions are satisfied. Mr Corbell noted, for example, that the Bureau of Meteorology will issue a daily fire danger index. I assume there is a protocol in place with the bureau relating to the role of the bureau in this way. As far as that goes, that is fine. What Mr Corbell omitted to say, however, beyond that is that he made no reference to the issuing of warnings. Does the bureau, having determined that the index is at a particular level, then issue the warning? I do not think that is a responsibility within the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Meteorology. I think that it is, as it should be, within the responsibility of particular jurisdictions and the ministers.
Mr Corbell made reference to the matter of determining a fire danger index on days outside the formal bushfire season as contributing to all of this confusion. Is Mr Corbell seriously suggesting that just because there is a risk of a bushfire outside the official bushfire season no index should be determined and no warning should be issued? What nonsense. The only confusion about these matters is in the mind of the minister. Everyone else is quite clear about what is needed and what is required to deal with bushfire emergencies.
Indeed, you only need to look at the recent cyclone that has hit the coast of Queensland. It was a cyclone, but was it a three, was it a two, was it a one? Was it a rain depression? Did it deteriorate? Did it gain strength? We all know that the weather, being what it is, will change. That is why it is appropriate to have this system. It is
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video