Page 4991 - Week 13 - Wednesday, 28 November 2018
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
On this issue it is important to point out that Mrs Jones’s motion raises only prescribed burns and does not take into account other fuel reduction measures which are equally important for reducing our bushfire risk. These include slashing, grazing, mowing, physical removal and chemical treatment as well as prescribed burning. Each of these techniques is used in different contexts, depending on the physical environment, depending on how close we are to the urban environment and, compared to being in Namadgi, being really mindful of sensitive areas like the sphagnum bogs through to areas that can be more readily burned and, as a fire, more readily managed.
All the measures that I have just mentioned are included in the bushfire operational plan and they all collectively contribute to our level of bushfire preparedness, which is why looking at prescribed burning in isolation, I do not think, gives an accurate picture of the level of risk or the level of preparation that has been done to combat that risk.
In her motion Mrs Jones says that under the 2017-18 bushfire operations plan 24.3 per cent of prescribed burns were completed and only seven per cent of prescribed burns were completed in 2016-17. I do think that this is a slightly misleading interpretation, as the annual report makes clear. The annual report says that, of the prescribed burns identified in the 2017-18 bushfire operational plan, 37 of 45 were completed, totalling 2,004 of 8,259 hectares; and in 2016-17 the plan identified 24 burns, totalling 7,379 hectares and nine were completed, totalling 504 hectares. Mrs Jones in her analysis has actually taken the hectare figure percentage and then used it as the percentage of burns completed.
When we look at the data the way that I would understand it, in 2017-18 the number of completed prescribed burns was actually 37 of 45, which is actually 82 per cent, much greater than the 24 per cent Ms Jones has cited in her motion. There is no need to try to misrepresent the situation when it comes to prescribed burns. We should look at the complete and accurate picture, and this should refer to the number and the area of prescribed burns, which is what the annual report shows. As the annual report also makes clear, the remainder of the burns were not completed due to unfavourable ecological and weather conditions.
I also note that officials in annual reports hearings have explained in detail the reasons for missed burns as well as the other factors beyond burning that are important to bushfire and fuel management. It is important that the professionals on the ground have the discretion to decide when it is safe to conduct prescribed burns and what type of fuel reduction activity is best for each environment.
I am also conscious that there is a range of stakeholders involved in the preparation of the bushfire operation plan, including groups such as rural lessees, the National Parks Association. All these factors that need to be weighed up have been very well considered and certainly from my recollection there is a high level of agreement about the bushfire operation plan. I think that that is very constructive and very positive. It is a testament to each of the people who have been involved in putting it together. I think it indicates that we have got that right balance between the protection of
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video