Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2003 Week 5 Hansard (7 May) . . Page.. 1665 ..

MR WOOD (continuing):

This may not be particularly relevant, because we want to move on, but if you want to do some maths you will see that for over 21/2 years the former government was trying to do something-I know they were trying to do something-and for 11/2 years this government has been trying to do something. But, of course, we are entirely to blame for that, according to Mr Pratt-we are the ones entirely to blame for it, notwithstanding that the former government, contrary to your view, was trying to defend the interests of the ACT. They were obviously trying to defend our interests. Now they have got a different view of the world. This change has come about merely because they want to make political capital out of this matter.

We have carried on that argument for 11/2 years. Yes, that is too long. We wish it could have been settled before this but, unlike Mr Pratt, we are not prepared to settle on unjust terms.

For the 2000-01 financial year the ACT invoiced the Commonwealth nearly $61/2 million. The Commonwealth through Comcover and the Department of Defence made two equal payments of nearly $2 million. An amount of $2,600,000 remains outstanding for the year 2000-01. That was at the time of the previous government, and I bet they bucked about it and argued the toss but they weren't successful. I acknowledge that but you do not.

During the 2001-02 financial year the ACT invoiced the Commonwealth a little more than $61/2 million but the Commonwealth made no payments in that time. In total, the unpaid invoices amounted to over $9 million. The introduction of Comcover signalled a change in focus of these payments by the Commonwealth, which now appears to treat them as being in the nature of an insurance-type premium. However, the purpose of insurance is one of reimbursement of costs in the event of loss, which is vastly different to the concept of a payment for the maintenance of an expensive response capability such as the fire brigade.

The ACT is in a unique position with regard to the location of the central offices of Commonwealth departments, national institutions and other national responsibilities. It is true that some Commonwealth properties have been sold. But since that time the National Museum of Australia has come on line. It is also true that since that time there have been unfortunately a very large number of so-called powder incidents and the circumstances have changed. But it appears the Commonwealth does not want to acknowledge that, nor does Mr Pratt as he seeks to ignore the ACT interests.

In negotiations with the Commonwealth over many meetings-Mr Pratt acknowledged this when quoting from a letter-the ACT has pursued a line of argument that the risk associated with the national capital and the seat of government of the Commonwealth has influenced the capability of the fire services in the territory.

ACT Fire Brigade service delivery to the community is based on the ACT's standards of fire cover which were developed as far back as 1987. The standards provide guidance regarding appropriate initial response time and weight of initial attack. They are also the basis upon which the fire brigade's infrastructure requirements are determined. Consideration of the standards of fire cover has meant that the fire

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .