Page 1995 - Week 06 - Thursday, 9 June 2016
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
which is the council—
(a) a person to represent the interests of the rural lessees;
(b) a person with relevant skills or experience to represent the community’s interest in the environment;
Remember, this is the Bushfire Council, and the only people who must be on the council are a rural lessee and a person with relevant skills or experience to represent the community. The section then goes on to say:
The Minister must try to ensure that the following are among the other members are appointed:
(a) a person with skills or experience in fire sciences;
So the Bushfire Council has to have somebody who is a rural lessee and someone with experience in the environment—that is a must—but experience in fire science is a “may”. Experience in land management is a “may”. A person with experience in fighting fires in the built-up area is only a “may”. The minister will try to get somebody with that. A person with experience in fighting fires in rural areas is a “may”, and a person with experience in indigenous land management “may” be on the council.
That is what is wrong with this legislation today, members. We are moving into an indecisive period or an indecisive process that will now depend on the outcome of some further consultation to replace something that we have already gotten rid of. At the same time, the body which is there to advise the minister on bush firefighting does not have to have bush firefighting experience and capability on that board. It must have a rural lessee and it must have someone to represent the community’s interest in the environment, which is very interesting wording: a person with relevant skills or experience to represent the community’s interest in the environment. We have forgotten about land management; we have forgotten about fire science; we have forgotten about fighting fires in built-up areas, we have forgotten about fighting fires in rural areas; and we have forgotten about indigenous land management.
There are significant flaws in the approach of this minister and there are significant flaws in this bill. Again, I ask members if they would consider not finalising this bill tonight, taking into account the concerns that have been raised and taking into account the concerns of some of the RFS volunteers and the UFU. This is fraught with danger.
I know some of the submissions to the review suggested people with land management experience. Indeed, I know that at least one of the suggestions to the review was experience in managing large wildfires, because that is also a very special skill. But no, we are not going to necessarily have those. I assume we probably will have those people on, but it is not guaranteed. The minister only has to try to ensure the following are appointed. The minister could say, “Well, I tried. I could not find anybody I thought relevant.” That is unacceptable, members, and that is why we should not be doing this bill this evening.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video