Page 1462 - Week 05 - Thursday, 13 May 1993
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Mr Connolly: I am sorry that I am implementing the report that Mr Kaine commissioned. I apologise for that.
MR HUMPHRIES: Madam Speaker, that is what is being suggested. I have just a couple of other points. The Minister said that sometimes when you have police and firemen arriving at different times, particularly if the police arrive after the fire, you have to destroy evidence in order to get someone out of a car that might be damaged or whatever. That is fair enough; that is true. Sometimes that will be the case. Sometimes it will be necessary for that to happen, for that evidence to be destroyed.
But, whereas it is often necessary or sometimes necessary under the present arrangements, it will almost invariably be necessary under the new arrangements because police presence at those sorts of scenes is going to be downgraded. That is inevitable. It must be the case. I think, Madam Speaker, that that is a cause for serious concern. I note that in the course of his remarks the Attorney did not once make reference to the very serious point put forward to us, and that I put forward again to the Assembly today, that we are losing a great pool of expertise by spreading our rescue service from a very narrow 13-or-so-member service to a 200 or 300-member service in the form of the Fire Service. That argument was not addressed by the Minister, and I am concerned about that.
As Mr Moore indicated, this inquiry must be forward looking. I have seen elements of changes in emergency services which I have not liked at first blush. I confess that I did not like some of the elements of the Purdon inquiry, for example, and I expressed very openly my view that there was a risk to the community of the ACT, particularly the rural community, by the loss of the integrity or the autonomy of the Bush Fire Council. But members will not have heard me criticise that decision in the time since this Assembly has been sworn in, because I believe that the decision is one which is working. I am prepared to accept that it is a decision which has been made to work and which has won the support, if begrudging, of the stakeholders in this area. That is evidence of the fact that we believe that these decisions sometimes can be made to work if they are properly thought through and argued with the part of the community that is affected by them. I do not think this has been done here as yet.
Let me say one final thing, Madam Speaker. I will give the Government some incentivation to engage in this inquiry.
Mr Connolly: That word!
MR HUMPHRIES: Incentivation, yes. You must remember that word. Madam Speaker, I think this is an important inquiry to take place. I believe that it should take place. I can indicate on behalf of my party that, if this inquiry is a fair and independent inquiry, as we have called for, and concludes, for example, that the police rescue service should be diminished in size or even abolished altogether, we will accept that verdict. There will be, as a result of that, the support of the Liberal Party behind those changes, providing those conditions have been met. I think that is a quite attractive offer. I hope that the Government
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .