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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2003 Week 5 Hansard (7 May) . . Page.. 1666 ..

MR WOOD (continuing):

brigade has developed a capacity infrastructure to support the possibility of needing to provide services rather than the response itself. Clearly, the costs of providing a force is one of the largest of the cost drivers.

Closer analysis of the Commonwealth proposal for payment based on response would mean that if no response were attributed to the Commonwealth then there should be no payment. So we only get paid if we get called out. Now do you reckon that is a fair thing, Mr Pratt? That is what they want. Is that a fair thing?

Mr Pratt: Perhaps not but you can still negotiate.

MR WOOD: Well, there you are. We are arguing that case. I wish you would join us in arguing that case.

If a response is required it is available to be on scene within 10 minutes on 90 per cent of occasions. This ability is underpinned by a standing capability based on accessibility. We are interested in these things and we want to provide a decent service.

The ACT differs significantly from other states and the Northern Territory in that the risk associated with Commonwealth facilities had greatly increased the brigade's infrastructure requirements, which determine response times and weight of initial attack to meet Commonwealth facility risk profiles, including facilities of national significance, national treasures-think of the National Library, the National Museum, and other places-and the business of government continuity.

The ACT contends that response and the standing capability required to support it are significant and they are costly components of the fire and emergency services provided by the ACT for the benefit of the Commonwealth. Mr Pratt does not want to acknowledge that. He wants us to roll over. The Commonwealth has agreed that the need for chemical, biological and radiological responses to national assets will need to be accommodated in whatever arrangements are agreed in recognition of that particular risk.

So there you are, we have been making some progress. They have agreed to that. We welcome the intervention of the Prime Minister and the indication that negotiations might move a little better, and I would be hoping for some flexibility from the Commonwealth.

The position adopted by the ACT is different to the system in place in most states. This appears to be a problem for the Commonwealth. But our position is entirely understandable when the unique circumstances of the financial arrangements made at self-government are taken into account.

Mr Deputy Speaker, there have been determined and vigorous efforts, over several years, and many meetings in our time and the time of the previous government, to settle this dispute on proper terms. It is unfortunate that a favourable outcome has not been achieved. This is due to intransigence on one side but it is not due to intransigence or breakdown on this side.

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