Page 1858 - Week 05 - Thursday, 6 May 2010
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
In conclusion, the Greens support this bill. It improves the ACT’s ability to prepare for emergencies. It does this by allowing for preventive action to be undertaken which will ultimately assist in reducing loss of life and property.
MR CORBELL (Molonglo—Attorney-General, Minister for the Environment, Climate Change and Water, Minister for Energy and Minister for Police and Emergency Services) (11.21): I would like to thank members for their support of this bill. This bill refines the emergency governance arrangements within the territory, builds upon the existing framework and is aimed at streamlining and enhancing the way the territory responds in an emergency. During the preparation of the refresh of the ACT emergency plan in 2008, a number of issues came to light regarding the government’s arrangements for emergency management. As a result, the ACT emergency management governance review made a number of recommendations on how these arrangements could be strengthened. The bill we are debating today is the government’s response.
One of the changes this bill makes is, at first glance, innocuous but is one that has come about due to concerns from stakeholders consulted during the review. This change is the retitling of the “territory controller” to “emergency controller”. During the review process, it was found that the title of “territory controller” can potentially lead to confusion as to the role and responsibilities of that position. This was due in part to the fact that, whilst the controller has overall responsibility for the operational requirements of an emergency incident, it is still the government that retains overall authority within the territory. As such, the review recommended the position be retitled to better reflect this distinction, hence the change from territory controller to emergency controller.
It is probably worth discussing this matter a little bit further. I note a similar concern has been raised in the Victorian bushfires royal commission where counsel assisting the commission has questioned and inquired into whether or not a state of emergency should have been declared in Victoria. I note that the point that has been made by the Victorian government is that there was no threat to the continuation of executive government, and, therefore, under their legislation they saw no need for the declaration of a state of emergency, and quite rightly. Those circumstances are relevant here in relation to this change of title.
The establishment of a territory controller does not mean that the executive government ceases to function; executive government continues to function. Indeed, even during the 2003 bushfire emergency here in the ACT where a state of emergency was declared and a territory controller appointed, executive government continued to function. It was essential that executive government continued to function for the range of recovery operations that were then on foot. This highlights that, whilst there will be potentially the need for an overall coordinating authority in the form of an emergency controller for significant emergencies, it is a different set of circumstances from those where the functions of executive government are under threat or have effectively collapsed.
A further change that this bill makes is the decoupling of the need to declare a state of emergency before an emergency controller can be appointed. This is a fundamental
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video