Page 1776 - Week 07 - Tuesday, 15 June 1993
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
The issue of this transfer of responsibility, this avoidance of duplication, is one that a number of members of this Assembly have been grappling with for years, and we have finally taken the decision. We took the decision some months ago. It was originally announced as a result of a - shock, horror - leak. The Australian Federal Police Association leaked to the Canberra Times that this was under consideration, I think with the expectation that I would then deny the story and retreat in horror. In fact I said, "Yes, that is right; we are looking at abolishing the need for a road rescue service equipped by the police because that service can be handled by the Fire Brigade". What Mr Dawson announced the other day was simply a reaffirmation of the Government's policy, which had been announced some months before and had been made crystal clear in this chamber on 13 May.
The current police rescue squad will not continue. It will be replaced by a five-person police emergency squad, which will have responsibility for country rescue, for bush incidents. It was very busy on the weekend up in the mountains, where there were some snow difficulties. It will also have a role in training additional police in support of their operations, so that when there is an emergency requiring a police response they will have an expanded group of officers to draw from. That is a common practice in the Australian Federal Police. That is the way our special operations team is trained. It is not a standing team; it is drawn from general duties officers specially trained to come in when called. That is what will happen with the police emergency response team. It has gone down from 13 to five. That allows eight officers to be redeployed, and those eight officers will be redeployed on general duties crime policing.
For all the hysteria that Mr Stevenson and Mr Humphries and the Australian Federal Police Association are trying to whip up over this, if you asked an ordinary Canberra citizen whether they would prefer to have a police officer walking the beat chasing crime or on standby out at the Weston Creek Police Centre, I know where they would prefer to see the police officer. They would prefer to see the police officer out there policing and let another service perform the ancillary duties.
Mr Stevenson's motion must be taken seriously, because it is an allegation that a Minister has flouted a resolution of this Assembly. Such an allegation, if true, would indeed be a serious matter; but it is fundamentally flawed, because the resolution of the Assembly has been complied with by the Government. We are having the inquiry. This Assembly did not resolve that I should not proceed with the transfer of road rescue responsibilities. If it had so resolved and I had flouted the Assembly, I could stand condemned, Mr Stevenson. It did not so resolve; therefore your resolution should fail.
MR MOORE (3.35): Madam Speaker, this is just another silly Stevenson stunt. He is debasing no-confidence motions again. We are getting them regularly. There is no basis for them. All it means is that when we get a situation where we really want to take a Minister to task it will be meaningless. It is the same principle that applied to the little boy who cried wolf.
I can remember on many occasions sitting next to the pillar, in the seat that is now occupied by Ms Ellis, and discussing with Mr Connolly the duplication of the rescue services between the police and the Fire Brigade, when Mr Collaery was responsible for one and Mr Duby for the other. I said how ridiculous it was, in a time of tightening budgets, that we ran a totally duplicated service. Further, in this Assembly I have raised the issue on a number of occasions and said to
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .