Page 2535 - Week 10 - Tuesday, 13 October 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Sunday's example of a public argument about who should have been called is any indication of present relations. I cannot stress strongly enough how appalled I am to hear that an argument took place at the scene. Despite their differences, both rescue services should be aware of how their public argument undermines the public's confidence in the provision of their services. I can only hope that the Canberra Times report is overstated.
During the Estimates Committee hearings members heard that the Fire Commissioner and the Police Commissioner are sorting out the difficulties that exist between the two services. Whatever is happening at this level, it is obviously not being reflected at service delivery level, which would help resolve what is recognised by all as a mess. In the past 10 years this dispute has erupted from time to time and, despite happy smiling faces pictured in the press signing interservice agreements, it appears that the spectre of divided responsibility will not go away.
I have had representations from the Australian Federal Police Association on this issue and I feel that an adversarial approach has now been ingrained into the two services. I have yet to hear from the United Firefighters Union of Australia, ACT branch. However, I have noted a higher level of activity within the past few months, with demonstrations of rescue procedures and yesterday's launch of "trauma bears" to be given out to children at accident scenes. All this activity tells me that things are far from satisfactory and desperately need to be resolved.
This brings me, by a fairly circuitous route, to the central point of today's matter of public importance debate - the failure of the Government to grasp the nettle and make real, lasting and meaningful decisions about how ACT emergency services are to operate. In all the talk that has gone on in the past few months there has been only talk of those involved sorting out the problem. If I can use an analogy, that would be like telling a couple going through a particularly nasty property settlement to sort it out themselves. We do not ask such people to do this, because we recognise the inherent complications of such situations and the inability of the people directly involved to view such divisions impartially.
So, too, the services involved here are fighting over their territory - what they both see as their right to have an involvement in road rescue. One, the police force, has a legislative imperative to investigate crime scenes and uses this in defence of its stance in this argument. However, because it has been party to several agreements over the years that recognised its attendance at road rescue scenes, the fire service feels that it also has an inherent right to be there and to be actively involved at these accident scenes.
Undoubtedly, the Minister feels that he has done as much as he can do to resolve this dispute. After all, the men and women involved are all professionals. But, if the reports from Sunday's fatality are in any way correct, that professionalism obviously breaks down under certain circumstances. The situation appears to be more complicated than just a north-south divide issue. If it is not, then that must be reinforced to all parties involved. But in the longer term it will not be enough to have told the Fire Brigade and police rescue units to go away and sort it out themselves. Apparently, several years of that remedy has not worked. The imperative now is to find a workable solution - a rescue service that is not driven by service loyalty and that recognises the job to be done and responds. Accordingly, this is what the people of Canberra expect, they are paying for and want.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .