Page 3637 - Week 12 - Tuesday, 28 October 2014
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
of an emergency, the officer in charge needs to be concentrating on the emergency, not looking over his or her shoulder to work out what the commissioner is up to. Yes, the commissioner has a role and the commissioner has a right to observe. The point was made that he was just asking questions. The way you phrase a question—and euphemistically a question can be a direction, and we all know that—does not lead to a safer fire ground or emergency scene.
From talking to the UFU, they have great concerns about this. From talking to the VBA, the Volunteer Brigades Association, they have concerns about this as well. And the concern of the VBA is that safety will be put at risk because what you may have then is conflicting orders that will lead to confusion. We all know that in emergencies the last thing you need is conflicting orders and/or confusion. The way that the act is, it works reasonably well.
In the briefing I was told that the suggested change came out of a practice exercise. Indeed, I understand that it was in a paper exercise—it was not actually in the field—that there was some conflict. This is the government’s heavy-handed approach to rectifying that, which is probably not a problem at all.
Again, I go back to the incident of the Sydney Building fire where it appears, depending on whom you speak to, the commissioner either asked a question about the location of the Bronto or ordered the Bronto moved. I have heard from people who tell me one story. The story in the paper and from the minister is a different story. The problem here is that once you get to that level it will take a very strong officer to stand up to the commissioner and tell him or her to go away.
It is interesting that when we first asked questions about this Mr Corbell was able to immediately answer, “No, the commissioner didn’t direct anybody to do anything.” He came back the next day and said again, “In response to Mr Smyth’s question, the ESA commissioner did not direct the Sydney fire officer onsite at the Sydney Building fire.” That is not what I am being told and there needs to be, first and foremost, some clarification of what actually happened.
Until we get some clarification we will oppose the existing clause 8A(3). It should be opposed and there is actually no reason to take the clause out. If you want to add in the other clause, the amending clause which is No 9 in the bill, a new (2) for the effective coordination of the emergency that the commissioner may direct a chief officer to undertake response or recovery operations, there is no reason to take out three, which would read, “The commissioner may not direct the chief officer to undertake an operation in a particular way.” It is explicit in the current act. It will not be explicit when it is amended.
The questions I asked during the briefing went to: what does coordination mean? I understand the government is going to move an amendment, a new clause 9, to section 8A(3) that will say:
coordination of an emergency means the bringing together of the emergency services and other agencies and resources to support the response to the emergency.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video