Page 2853 - Week 07 - Wednesday, 29 June 2011
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
MR SMYTH: Whichever set you want to look at. This minister’s record for the effective management of whatever portfolio he has got his fingers in is not one that is held up in high regard by any groups. You have only to look at the fact that he was stripped of planning. He was fired as the planning minister for the administration that he put in place. I do not think there is a great deal of trust in some of the decisions that have been made by this minister, and when you get the range of people in the community and the level of community disquiet over this issue, I think we all have a right to be concerned.
I thank Mr Rattenbury for his amendment. I think it enhances the motion. We look forward to seeing that information, and not just seeing it but having the chance to debate it. When the minister tables it, I expect there to be a debate, and I think Mr Rattenbury has the same expectation, and that it is not a matter of saying, “Here, I’ve tabled what you wanted; now I’m going to do whatever I want, anyway.” I hope it is implicit in the amendment, but just to make it clear, I expect there to be a debate on the issue when it is tabled.
The reason I do this is I think best contained in the report by Stuart Ellis, Professor Peter Kanowski and Professor Rob Whelan, who wrote a report about the dreadful 2002-03 fire season across Australia. Remember that it was not just the ACT that suffered in 2003; New South Wales, and Victoria as well, had significant fires and damage was done. These three gentlemen who are experts in their field have developed this concept of what they call the “bushfire cycle”, where you have a major event, there are accusations and blame, government or independent inquiries and consequences, increases in emergency services funding, initial community complacency, coronial inquiry and further consequences, and then growing complacency until you have another major bushfire cycle.
They say this can take up to 20 to 50 years over a cycle, depending on climatic, rainfall and other factors. But eight years after the 2003 event, it has taken some time; I think we had five restructures, four commissioners, three sets of law—the changes have been constant. We had a stat authority; we did not have a stat authority. Despite the government’s administration of this area, the public servants who have been on the ground have actually made this work, and are actually now achieving.
The fact is that from one end of the spectrum, the professional bushfire fighters and those with an interest in fire management, all the way through to the other end, the conservation movement, they all are not happy with the proposed reforms. They are all lauding the staff and the work that they do, and are very happy with what they are achieving. That is a rare concurrence. The planets are in alignment. Everybody seems to be happy with this except for the minister.
You have people of the calibre of those that have written to me—and I assume they have written to others—making the statements that they “oppose the disbanding of the TAMS fire management unit”. “We are dismayed at what is happening.” “Cancel the dismemberment of the TAMS fire management unit.” “Fire management teams will be significantly affected.” When you have that level of angst coming out of the community then it does need to be looked at. It should be reviewed, it should come
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video