Page 2458 - Week 08 - Wednesday, 29 June 2005
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
If there is a need to introduce legislation, as seems to be the case in New South Wales, we will have a good look at it first. We will get the fire brigade to check its efficacy to see whether it works. We will take some advice from the Insurance Council on whether or not we should be going down that track. We will take advice from other insurers in this town and will have some further consultation. I do not propose, in fact, to make up my mind within 90 days and come back in this place. I just foreshadow that, not only will the government not be supporting this amendment; we will not be talking any further on it either.
MR PRATT (Brindabella) (3.46): Mr Speaker, we certainly do not disagree with the spirit or the intention of this motion. The range of tragedies we have seen across a number of jurisdictions, particularly through winter, has been quite astounding. The community needs to take all steps to try to minimise that type of danger.
However, the question is: why do we need a motion anyway? To pick up on the point that the minister just made about whether there was any necessity to legislate to force changes—I think he said, “Let us beg the question; there may not even be a need for that”—certainly we do not see a necessity for the motion. What we simply say is: “The spirit of the details of the motion is quite right; but, come on, government, get on with it.” What we want to see down here is an announcement made that there are steps being taken. It will certainly get bipartisan support to make sure that the matter can be expedited. Therefore, it is much more appropriate for the government to take action, move now, come down here, make the announcement; and you will get our support. We do not need to have a motion to debate such a fundamental issue.
As to the matter just raised by the minister about why we put this amendment up: minister, you might say that the need to report back in 90 days is of little interest to you or is contrary to your view. But of course Ms MacDonald, in her motion—if we are going to have to now talk to the motion and talk about the fundamentals in that motion—asked the government to investigate. What we are saying is: “If the government bows to the wish of that motion and goes off to investigate whether or not we need to put some sort of policy down about smoke alarms, we are putting a time frame on that,” because we know that when this government goes away to investigate something you wait forever to get a response.
This is the government, after all, of never-ending inquiries, investigations, reviews and God-knows-what. So what we are asking the government to do is get out there, sort out what your policy ought to be and move fairly quickly, because there is a time urgency about this; and you will get our support. There is no question about that, minister.
The only point that we would raise about the motion that bears a little bit of checking out—and we would like to hear what the minister has to say about this—is the issue of retrograde fitting. I think you were talking about mandatory fitting of smoke alarms to all properties. Whether or not it is going to be practical and sound to retrograde fit alarms to old properties is a question that needs to be asked and then answered. We are not saying that it is not necessary, but we raise the question of whether it is going to be a practical policy to put in place. I would like to hear what you have got to say about that.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .