Page 4900 - Week 15 - Thursday, 15 December 2005
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
I want to read from an email I received from a volunteer. In the first paragraph he raises some issues and in the second paragraph he says, “Secondly, most of what has been claimed about the Canberra Times article is baloney. First step—read it. It does not denigrate our work.” That is the first point. Neither Mr Pratt, nor the Canberra Times or I have denigrated the work of the volunteers in the field. There is a great deal of respect for what they have done over the last three or four weekends.
The letter goes on to say, “It reports difficulties expressed by probably tired and maybe frustrated people who have worked their guts out.” That is why this motion is on the table today. I will read from a different email from another volunteer, who says, “So about the post meeting, the same issues will be raised as they have been in the past. And what action will be implemented? What we raised will be the same as previous operations. Meetings should lead to improvements. There are a lot of disgruntled members out there because they’re not being looked after.” That is the point of the motion.
When Mr Hargreaves does not have a substantive answer, he goes the denigration route. He picks on people for raising an issue that he does not want to answer. I actually sat in on the meeting between Mr Pratt and half a dozen volunteers. They raised issues like equipment and backup and support, and the lack of it. The chainsaw chaps that needed to be replaced were not replaced. This is essential, personal, protection equipment that, under the OH&S act, should be worn when using chainsaws. One of the emails I got said that “chainsaw PPE remains not adequate”. So chainsaw personal protection equipment is not adequate. Another example is 10-year-old helmets. Another example is that earmuffs were promised six months ago.
This is pretty basic, Mr Speaker. You were in the fire brigade. You have worn and used this equipment. You know that after a certain time safety helmets lose their strength and if they are not replaced regularly they place officers at risk. This group relayed the story of a tile that flew from the roof of a house during the weekend and fell on the helmet of a young volunteer. Thank God she had a helmet on. It cracked the helmet. When they returned to the stores, the officer in charge said, “Go and get yourself a new helmet. That helmet is now not compliant with OH&S.” When she went in to get a new helmet, she was told that because of “budget constraints” she would not be given a new helmet.
Budget constraints stopped an officer from having the personal protection she not only needs, but also deserves. In some dismay she took the helmet back out to her captain and said, “I can’t have a new one.” The captain, I think very wisely, put the helmet on the ground and jumped on it. He said, “Here. Take that back to them and you’ll get a new one now,” which she did. That is the dilemma that these people are facing. They do not ask for much. They do not want much. They just want helmets that will protect them when they go out on the job. That is what we are talking about, Mr Hargreaves. That is the level of the issues that affect these people that you have chosen to ignore today.
As you would know, Mr Speaker, a lot of sandbags are used in these sorts of operations. Where was the sand from the sandbags put? It was put out at the Gungahlin JESC. So if you are operating in Woden and you need sand to fill sandbags to anchor things and protect houses, you will have to drive all the way to Gungahlin, fill your trailer or whatever it is you are using, and then go back to Woden. They were saying that
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .