Page 2845 - Week 07 - Wednesday, 29 June 2011
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
perspective, but I also think when it comes to these matters in light of the experience in 2003, and the McLeod report, the coronial inquiry and the matters that have been brought to this city’s attention and to this Assembly’s attention, it is entirely appropriate for us to look very closely at the resources that are being allocated to fire management in the ACT, how those resources are being allocated, how they match up to the recommendations from the McLeod report and how those structures are being changed over time and to debate in this place whether we do hold the view that that approach is adequate.
I do not believe that is a second-guessing exercise. I think it is our job to scrutinise these points, to look closely at them, and the endeavour of my amendment is to provide the minister with an opportunity to provide the Assembly with a clear set of information. Talking about matters such as spelling out the current structure and full-time equivalents in each work unit presents a very clear opportunity for the minister to come to the Assembly and provide the information in a way in which members can make a clear judgement about whether there is any diminution of resources allocated to fire management in the ACT.
The minister has spoken to me about the first part of my new section (2), as proposed in my amendment, which says that any changes should not take place until a report is tabled in the Assembly. The minister has asked me to reconsider that part of it. I do think, though, it is appropriate that that debate take place before changes are put in place and locked in. I think it is a matter of great concern to the public in the ACT. Certainly the representations I have received in recent days underline to me how strong the views are on this, how strong the concerns are, and I think it is warranted that we do look at this, so I intend to move my amendment as it has been tabled.
I simply conclude by acknowledging that this is a very difficult area. It is one on which, in light of the 2003 fires, people in Canberra do have very strong views. I do not think it is a black and white area. It is an area of some considerable debate, but I think that it is one that is entirely open for the Assembly to scrutinise, and on that basis I move the amendment circulated in my name:
Omit subparagraph (1)(d) and paragraph (2), substitute:
“(d) that the ACT Government has decided to restructure the Fire Management Unit; and
(2) calls on the Minister for Territory and Municipal Services to commit to not restructuring the Fire Management Unit until a report is tabled in the Assembly outlining the proposal in detail including:
(a) the current structure of the Parks and Conservation Service and the number of full time equivalents (FTEs) in each work unit and their specified role;
(b) what effect the restructure will have on that structure and the number of FTEs and their specified role;
(c) how the proposed restructure maintains commitments made by the ACT Government in response to the Coronial Inquiry into the 2003 bushfires, the McLeod Report and the Hawke Report;
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video