Page 2848 - Week 07 - Wednesday, 29 June 2011
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
When you get concerns from professionals in the community who know fire and fire management, from land management groups, from conservation groups, from ordinary citizens all saying they are very concerned about something that is working incredibly well at the moment, and indeed has a great deal of respect—and it took them a bit of time to get up to it, but it is working well now.
We all acknowledge that change sometimes does take a bit of time. But to dismantle that now for no clear reason, for benefits that we only hear about today that have not been quantified, is unacceptable, and in that regard we will accept the amendment proposed by Mr Rattenbury.
MR CORBELL (Molonglo—Attorney-General, Minister for the Environment and Sustainable Development, Minister for Territory and Municipal Services and Minister for Police and Emergency Services) (3.56): I move the amendment to Mr Rattenbury’s amendment circulated in my name:
In proposed paragraph (2), omit the words “to commit to not restructuring the Fire Management Unit until a report is tabled”, substitute: “to table a report”.
Mr Smyth misrepresents me, but that is not unusual for Mr Smyth. What I said very clearly was that my role as minister was to be satisfied that there was no diminution of effort, that there was no compromising of the capability and the functionality of this very important activity of fire fuel management, fire management, for the land manager. And that is why I asked the questions. If it became clear to me that there was a diminution of capability, that there was a compromising of effort, then that would be another matter, and I would take appropriate steps to ensure that that issue was rectified.
But the fact is that it is clear to me that this is not compromising the capability or the functions or the total number of people who perform these functions within the directorate. What is changing is the title of some of these functions and, in relation to two staff who are responsible for planning and logistics, they are going to sit with all the other people in the directorate who do planning and logistics. That is what is changing, and I think that makes sense. Why should planning and logistics for one function be completely divorced from all the other land management functions? It does not make sense. This is a sensible management decision on the part of my directorate.
Mr Rattenbury asks me, in his amendment, to not proceed with this decision until certain things are done, and I am to provide a certain report to the Assembly. As I said before, the government and the public pay our senior executive staff a lot of money, more than they pay ministers, to manage the day-to-day directorate functions and to make sure they are being delivered consistent with the government’s policy and statutory objectives.
I do not believe that it is the place of this Assembly to micromanage how staffing decisions and administrative arrangements are put in place within directorates. I am quite happy to provide a detailed explanation to the Assembly on what is occurring
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video