Page 2847 - Week 07 - Wednesday, 29 June 2011
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
We are then going to co-locate the proposed fire operations unit, so there is a new unit coming out of this, the proposed fire operations unit, with the planning and logistics section. Then there is in the second-last paragraph a sentence that is not even grammatically correct:
The long term fire management regime is unaffected the strategic bushfire management plan V2 and sub-regional plans are still being implemented through the annual bushfire operational plans.
I am not sure what that means. There are words or a phrase missing. I get very worried when ministers cobble together answers like this. It tells me they have been caught out, and this minister I believe in this regard has been caught out.
I actually do believe that it is being abolished, but we will give the minister the benefit of the doubt—let us call it a restructure. Apparently nothing is changing, but it is all being restructured; it is being split and it is being changed. I can live with the second point.
In the new substitute paragraph (2), what he is asking for is a clear outline of the structure of the Parks and Conservation Service as it is, what it will be, does that structure actually maintain what both Doogan and McLeod asked for, and how in fact it will improve. It is easy to say, “Oh, we are changing this,” but do you remember yesterday? The minister said, “We are just changing the name and we are restructuring the head of the unit.” So how that achieves the greater functionality that he is talking about will be interesting. And subparagraph (d) in paragraph (2) asks how the restructure will improve the functioning of the fire management unit. Well, let us find that out.
I think we need to have details of consultation undertaken with staff; that is fine. The problem for me is I understand this was all due to start on 1 July, and it was more or less a fait accompli until such time as the community has sought to inform Mr Rattenbury and myself. I understand now there are three weeks of consultation starting on 1 July. But consulting on a decision that has already been taken—
Mrs Dunne: And using three weeks, which is contrary to the guidelines, is neither here nor there.
MR SMYTH: And using three weeks, which is contrary to their consultation guidelines, is just silly. It is a cover-up. As I said earlier, it is closing the gate when the horse has bolted. We know this minister, and we know how he acts. He started by saying, “I do not interfere,” but then he said, “But I asked a question.” If he had asked a question and got an answer that he did not like, it does raise the question: would he have interfered?
He has been given guarantees that it will not change, but I think there are significant changes that will come as a consequence of this, and it might not just happen over the next month or two, but over the next year or two it may well do, and that is some of the fear in the community.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video