Page 2540 - Week 10 - Tuesday, 13 October 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
efficient, and indicates the need for one efficient service rather than various services. There is no point in having various services jointly responsible for delivering an emergency service if one is perhaps more trained than the other. I am not saying that this is the case; but the question must be asked and, more importantly, answered. There must be equally qualified backup personnel.
The matter of vehicles and equipment, I think, has already been addressed. I think that even the Minister is aware that there is some duplication of equipment and associated cost. We would like to be sure that we have appropriate equipment and that it is properly maintained. I realise that this presents significant budgetary implications, but if only one service was provided you could maybe save some money rather than spend money. The equipment has to be adequate and be able to respond to the kinds of emergencies that arise, especially where they can create a serious problem.
MRS CARNELL (3.31): This, obviously, as everybody has rightly said, is a serious issue. I think there is lots of common ground between both sides of the house, and on the part of the many interested parties. It is an issue that has been going for a very long time. As we would all be aware, it has a long history. In the early 1980s there was lots of movement on it; but in December 1986 there was a joint ministerial directive in relation to road rescue and hazardous material spillage from the Hon. Mick Young, a friend of many on the opposite side, and the Hon. Gordon Scholes, and I think they had it fairly right at that stage. The underlying principles of the directive were that the AFP have responsibility for the scene of the accident, to see that the rescue is carried out appropriately; that in carrying out this responsibility the Government required the AFP to use community resources, including those of the Fire Brigade, as effectively and efficiently as possible; and that the police and the Fire Brigade were to collaborate on the preparation of a hazardous material spillage plan, under the chairmanship of the Fire Brigade. That was an amazingly sensible approach, I thought.
Since then we have had lots and lots of movement, not the least being that the Fire Brigade became more involved in upgrading their road accident equipment quite substantially. In 1989 the ACT disaster plan was revised. Again it was not an unrealistic approach. The AFP were responsible for rescue, excluding fire rescue, and assisted the Fire Brigade with hazardous material spillage. The ACT Fire Brigade was responsible for hazardous material spillage and building search and rescue involving fire and the threat of fire. Again, that was a very sensible approach.
Since then there have been numbers of discussion papers and reports on both sides. The ACT Priorities Review Board recommendations were of great interest, as were a great deal of its other recommendations. It said:
The Board recommends that:
to achieve maximum rationalisation of resources and effective coordination and cooperation, emergency service agencies be amalgamated to the full extent possible; beyond that, formal cooperation arrangements be established.
Who could say anything more definitive than that? But still we have a situation where we have two forces, fully equipped and very well trained, to service, I understand, somewhere in the vicinity of 26 accidents last year.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .