Page 1441 - Week 05 - Thursday, 13 May 1993
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Mr Cornwell: Really?
MR HUMPHRIES: Really. It is, however, pertinent to ask: Are we basing this new consolidated, streamlined emergency services empire on the wrong service? Which service in the Territory is the most efficient? Which has the best work practices? Which has the best skills base amongst its members? Frankly, I am not convinced, and I have not seen any evidence at all from this Government to suggest that it has proof that this is the case, that the answer to those questions should be the ACT Fire Service.
Consider, for example, that the most recently available figures from the Commonwealth Grants Commission make comparisons of the discrete services of the ACT as they now stand in terms of operation of particular functions. They use a cost of service provision ratio and a level of service provision ratio. Those are complex calculations and they are not easy to use. They are hardly user friendly, but they certainly indicate something about the nature of our respective services. The Minister does not think so, but I do.
Mr Connolly: No; I think you are about to fall into a big trap here, Gary. Keep going, son.
MR HUMPHRIES: We will see. That report indicated that there was a considerable difference between the cost of service ratios of the police and the Fire Service and the level of service ratios. We assume here that 100 per cent represents the Australia-wide standard. Those figures indicate that the police are operating on a 116 per cent cost of service ratio in the ACT and that they were achieving a level of service ratio of 127.5 per cent. I think it is fair to assume that that means that for 116 per cent of the national expenditure we are getting something like 127 per cent of the level of service. The same figures were done in respect of the Fire Service in the Territory. The cost of service ratio for the ACT Fire Service was 216 per cent and the level of service ratio was 107.2 per cent.
Mr Connolly: But what did it include?
MR HUMPHRIES: I am sure that the Minister will give us some reason why those figures do not apply, but I wonder whether the Minister really can satisfy this Assembly. The onus does fall on him in this case to show that our Fire Service is now the more efficient service on which to base this new emergency services empire, which is clearly the direction this Government is taking. Can he demonstrate that to this Assembly? Can he satisfy himself and us and the people of the ACT that the Fire Service is the efficient service he obviously thinks it is on which to base this new decision about structuring our services?
Other questions about the outlay of services raise themselves. I think the figures I have quoted from the Grants Commission make a lot of sense, particularly when you compare a city such as Newcastle with Canberra. These two cities are comparable in size, but they have a glaring disparity in the outlay of services in the area of fire. Canberra has modern building codes and employs some 287 firemen - they are mostly firemen - in eight stations. Newcastle, on the other hand, is an old city with old fire codes, nowhere near those of the ACT, for the most part. It has heavy industry, which would suggest a higher fire risk, to my mind; but it has only 135 firemen spread over three stations.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .