Page 1781 - Week 07 - Tuesday, 15 June 1993
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
I emphasise that I am supporting this on the premise that the inquiry will not do that.
It was quite clear at the time of the debate that the decision taken by Mr Connolly would stand, regardless of whether the motion for the inquiry was supported by the Assembly or not; and so it should stand. The issue of emergency services has plagued all governments since self-government, and it is quite clear that a decision needed to be made on the issue.
In an earlier debate, members of the Opposition made it quite clear that they believed that Mr Connolly's duty was to make a decision. Mr Westende, for example, speaking about Mr Connolly, said:
All he needs to do is make a decision and stick by it -
not make this particular decision, but make a decision and stick by it. Mr Westende went on:
This means all the emergency services personnel have to be equally trained and be equally effective and efficient, and indicates the need for one efficient service rather than various services.
I agree. Indeed, the call for a decision was entirely reasonable in the circumstances, given that this debate has been going on for some years. Even Mrs Carnell was calling for a decision. Mrs Carnell said:
Therefore, it would seem appropriate right now -
this is in October 1992 -
to make a decision on who does the job ...
Mrs Carnell did not say that a particular service should take on the job; she said that we should make a decision on who does it. Quite clearly, the Liberals were calling for a decision to be made. Mr Kaine said:
I would be much happier if I saw Mr Connolly acting in his usual decisive manner and saying, "This is our strategy; this is what we are going to do and we are going to have this fixed inside three months".
It seems quite clear to me that there is some remaining animosity about the decision Mr Connolly has made, but there is no question that Mr Connolly had the right, and indeed the duty, to make that decision. At the time the inquiry was debated in this Assembly, there is no question at all that the call for an inquiry was seen as entirely prospective. There was no question that the inquiry would reopen the question of who performed the emergency services. I believe that both Mr Stevenson's motion and Mr Humphries's amendment ought to fail on those grounds alone.
Nevertheless, there are further grounds, I believe, the decision having been made, for supporting that decision. The decision has been made, and it is time now to get on with the job of ensuring that our emergency services are as efficient and as effective as they possibly can be and as this community deserves. That fact is quite clearly recognised by a number of members in the Assembly and, as
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .