Page 67 - Week 01 - Tuesday, 14 February 2006
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Does he tell us where he is getting the money from? No. Why not? Because he has not got a clue. I wonder whether or not Mr Mulcahy’s job as shadow Treasurer is in fact under threat from old Cassius, my mate over here. I do not know; I really do not know.
We talk about our volunteers. This is the guy that denigrates them and needs to be ashamed of himself. He says the big storm was managed disgracefully. He throws things into the wind and hopes somebody catches them, like: “The SES volunteers were not actually supported,” “People had to go and get changed,” and all that sort of stuff. He did not check it out. The meals were provided, as it turns out. He has been told that in this place. They were supported. The people who went and bought stuff were told where to get it from, but they still went and bought it.
I reject out of hand his assertions that those SES people were not supported. The people who were not supported of course were those people in the SES who decided to play mischief and feed Mr Pratt with misinformation, hoping to do one of two things: if it is half right, the government is going to get embarrassed. But you did it all wrong. Mr Pratt gets embarrassed.
Then he rambles on and says, “You are not helping your retention of volunteers by talking about gagging them, talking about discipline.” We are extending to these volunteers exactly the same protections as exist for public servants in this town. There is no gag. There is whistleblower protection afforded to these people if they choose to use it. It is quite the opposite. This guy is portraying 100 per cent wrongly the actual situation with our volunteers.
Then he rambles off, pre-empting a debate tomorrow—he is allowed to because the notice paper for tomorrow has not been delivered yet—saying that our bushfire fuel reduction on the urban edge is not sufficient. This is the guy who sent a letter to everybody in Kambah saying, “I have noticed there is long grass at the back of your house; you are all going to die. Are you worried about that?” Some of them said, “Yes, we are, Mr Pratt”. He then says, “I have had all of these constituents complaining.” That is bordering on fraud.
Mrs Burke: On a point of order, Mr Temporary Deputy Speaker.
MR HARGREAVES: I said “bordering on”.
Mrs Burke: Standing order 46 refers to personal imputation. Mr Hargreaves will need to withdraw some of the comments he has just made in relation to Mr Pratt.
MR HARGREAVES: If it pleases you, Mr Temporary Deputy Speaker, I withdraw the imputation that it was bordering on fraud. However, Mr Pratt did not give us the benefit of the phone call he had to his office from a particular constituent who took offence to the letter that he sent to them, inviting them to indulge in this Eureka-like uprising. No, he did not tell us that, did he? He portrays himself as the expert. I have got more faith in the volunteers, I have got more faith in the risk management section of ESA, to tell us, in the context of this strategic bushfire management plan and the BOPs, whether or not an area is at such a risk that we need to attend to it straight away. And guess what? We have done just that.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .