Page 4904 - Week 15 - Thursday, 15 December 2005
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
McLeod report and other community feedback coming out of January 2003 were being properly implemented? When they then appropriated the funding to implement those recommendations, did this minister—or, at least, his predecessor, and now him—go in and scrutinise to ensure that every dollar was being spent wisely? The answer, I would put to you, is no.
The minister made the comment that I was “bagging out” the TRN. I am bagging out the TRN, apparently. But I have not bagged out the systemic concept of TRN. I have not bagged out the concept of a new trunk radio network. I have bagged out this minister’s failure to roll out the trunk radio network on time and to the full extent that it was designed for. One would expect RFS and SES units to continue using their old VHF command network to overlap the introduction to service and the full implementation of the new trunk radio network for about a year; you would expect that, wouldn’t you? You would expect that they would be allowed to use their old VHF system to overlap the new system for a reasonable amount of time. But what do we see? We see that RFS and SES units are still dependent to a significant degree on the old VHF command network because there are gaping holes in TRN. Why is that? I bet you it is because not all of the 22 base stations have been deployed, and we are talking about 22 base stations that were defined on the list that justified the appropriation of a significant amount of money. Why? I bet it is because that money has gone west—the money has gone west, and the system of those base stations has not yet been fully rolled out.
Mr Hargreaves: There’s another one—unsubstantiated.
MR PRATT: Show me where you have 22 base stations.
Mr Hargreaves: Substantiate your allegations.
MR PRATT: Show me where you have 22 base stations. You cannot.
MR SPEAKER: Order! Mr Pratt, keep your comments through the chair. Mr Hargreaves, cease interjecting. A little less finger pointing would be helpful, too.
MR PRATT: Let us talk about FireLink. Why was there a single select tender for FireLink? The minister argued that this was needed so that the system could be rolled out for the 2004-05 fire season. Now we find it is not even ready for the 2005-06 season, and it will not be commissioned until 2006-07. You justify that in terms of a single service tender. Why the single select tender when there should have been a competitive tender? These are very serious and important questions about how we budget manage, how we project manage and how we properly tender in an accountable fashion, to make sure that not only are all possible capabilities canvassed, to make sure that we get the best capability for the money being spent—that is what the residents of the ACT want—but also that financial systems are properly managed and that there is no question of integrity about how those have been managed. You and your agency leave lots of questions hanging in the air, minister, about FireLink, and we need to know a lot more about it.
I celebrate the point raised by Mr Smyth about the volunteers emailing him who have objected to the government’s language—perhaps even the commissioner’s language—criticising the Canberra Times article: “It was denigrating volunteers.” What a lot of
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .