Page 2849 - Week 07 - Wednesday, 29 June 2011
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
and how it is occurring and addressing all of the questions Mr Rattenbury has in his amendment. But I do not think it is the place of the Assembly, as I said in my initial speech, to decide how a directorate structures itself to deliver its functions, as long as it is clear that these functions can be delivered at the level expected of it.
That is clear to me, so I am proposing the amendment that I have circulated in my name, which omits the words “to commit to not restructuring the Fire Management Unit until a report is tabled” and replacing it simply with calling on me “to table a report” outlining the proposal in detail according to the terms set out in the rest of Mr Rattenbury’s amendment.
I think that is a reasonable way forward. It is not the Assembly’s job to micromanage the activities of a directorate. It is your job to hold me accountable. If I put in place a structure which causes problems, by all means hold me accountable. But that is not the situation we are in at this time.
There is one other point that I would like to make on this issue. Some of the same people who are criticising this proposal are those who argue that the ranger staff of Territory and Municipal Services should be put into the Environment and Sustainable Development Directorate. The government has decided not to do that, for a very important reason. We want a single land manager for the territory, and we are not going to agree to a proposal that puts some land management staff in one directorate and puts other land management staff in another directorate.
I find it a contradiction that there are those who will use an argument about the viability of the fire management unit, and having regard to the lessons of 2003 and so on, to criticise this proposal on the one hand, but then on the other hand actually advocate for the splitting up of the land management function between two directorates.
First and foremost, I believe it is absolutely vital that we have a single land manager for the territory’s conservation estate, and that is why we are retaining those ranger staff within Territory and Municipal Services rather than dividing them between two directorates. I think it is important that members have regard to that issue because a single land manager was a very clear recommendation of McLeod and the coronial inquiry—that there should be a single land manager, one land manager, responsible for all of the territory’s natural estate. That is what we have in TAMS and that is why we are retaining those staff in TAMS.
Turning to the rest of Mr Rattenbury’s amendment, as I said before, this is not a matter where the Assembly should try to micromanage the administrative arrangements within a directorate, but I am happy to provide further advice and explanation as to why this is being done in addition to what I have already done, and in particular to give those assurances about FTE. There is no change to FTE. I can say that now: there is no change to the staffing level, there is no change to the function of the parks brigade, there is no change to the people who deliver fire management on the ground.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video