Page 1446 - Week 05 - Thursday, 13 May 1993
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
not to fire services; it is to fire and public safety, other. If you look at last year's Grants Commission report, not this year's, in the fine print it points out that in the ACT the fine white powder is included in "other public safety" - asbestos. The cost of the asbestos program, Mr Humphries, is included in that category.
I table an analysis of that Grants Commission finding, prepared by Dr Gregory of the Treasury, which demonstrates that, when you subtract the substantial contribution we make for asbestos and the allowance they give us for asbestos, the ACT's standardised expenditure on fire is $14.4m. Our actual expenditure is less than that. So Mr Humphries's allegation that we spend twice as much as we should on fire, and therefore it is inefficient - - -
Mr Humphries: I did not say that.
MR CONNOLLY: You said that the Grants Commission finds that our expenditure is 216 per cent and that indicates an inefficient fire service. It would; it would indicate a woefully inefficient fire service. But that expenditure is on the category of fire and other public safety, and that is grossly inflated by the asbestos program. I table the analysis by Dr Gregory, which demonstrates that, when you take out of account the asbestos expenditure, our actual expenditure on fire is slightly below what the Commonwealth says would be a standardised average.
If members were minded to support Mr Humphries's motion on the basis that there is something wrong here, we have a fire service that is twice as expensive as it should be - I must say that I would support an inquiry into anything where we were spending twice as much as we should - they really must think again because it is a fundamentally wrong premise. It takes into account the asbestos program. The actual cost of the Urban Fire Service, on the analysis we have had done by one of our senior Treasury officials, demonstrates that we are spending a little more than we would on the Grants Commission standardised expenditure basis.
Madam Speaker, this is really about Mr Humphries performing a political stunt for the benefit of the Police Association. That is fair enough; you are entitled to do that. The association has a very strong view about the future of road rescue. I can respect that view, although I disagree with it. But members of the association who are present and hearing Mr Humphries put out on behalf of the Liberal Party the great defence of the road rescue service should know what the Liberal Party said about this subject a bare few months ago. For several years now we have had ongoing problems in rivalry between the police and fire services in relation to road rescue and we have had numerous attempts to fix up the problem.
On 13 October 1992, the Liberals brought on a matter of public importance in relation to road rescue and emergency services. What did they say that I should do? At that stage I had announced that we were trying to have this first vehicle on the scene response. So we were slightly modifying the north-south divide. We were allowing the first vehicle on the scene, from whatever service, to do the rescue and we would further look at what should be done. Mr Westende said about me:
All he needs to do is make a decision and stick by it.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .