Page 3313 - Week 10 - Thursday, 19 October 2006
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
somewhere in the vicinity of 12 to 15 towers and base stations. Have you got those towers up yet? Have you got all of those towers up yet?
Why in the South Namadgi fire deployment of last week and the week before were your units unable to communicate, or at least relay via an appropriate tower somewhere, with the Fairbairn RFS headquarters? They could not do that. Why did the volunteers—who, by the way, are really p’d off about this—have to use mobile phones, and I think even in one case a satellite phone, to communicate back to RFS headquarters and ESA headquarters in town for what should have been a fairly routine deployment?
Why were the volunteer units and agencies unable to always communicate with each other? Why are they falling back to the old VHF network, the old tried and tested system? Did you possibly explore some other options to either improve the networking of TRN or even to enhance elements of VHF?
A lot of money has been spent. I put it to you that our communications are no better advanced then they were in January 2003, despite all the money that has been spent, despite all the glossy programs that have been introduced, and despite all the toys for boys initiatives that have been taken. There are major questions about this.
In the recent storm deployment by the SES, the SES of course were using their primary radio network as their primary means of communication. But because they are required to carry in every vehicle a $50,000 white box FireLink terminal, they were also required, because of the need to locate their vehicles or for status on where their vehicles are, to have FireLink working.
FireLink did not work. Yes, minister, it was not the primary means of communication, but a lot of bloody money has been spent to put a $50,000 box in every vehicle. For what purpose? So people can keep track of where vehicles are. It did not work in the storm because 130 incidents overloaded the system. FireLink did not work for the SES units which were with the RFS units and for the RFS units in the south Namadgi fire last week.
That is just unacceptable. The volunteers and captains are saying that the stuff does not work. The captains are also saying they do not even want to use FireLink. They do not believe they need it. They believe that $5 million has been wasted on that program, which is now three years late, by the way. I remind you that you wanted a single source tender for an untried and untested product. Your excuse was that you needed it in service by 2003-04.
Here we are in 2006-07 and questions are still being asked about it. It is simply not fully in service. Why do we impose on our volunteer units these complicated communications programs that take up valuable time for training? More complicated equipment with additional links in the communications chain is being used. When that breaks down, it simply overloads the system.
I think you have spent far too much money. Good on you for acquiring all that money, but it is of no use if you are throwing good money after bad. That is the problem. The problem is complicated and expensive systems; and too many links in the chain. People on the ground are not happy to use those systems anyway; they not see the need for a
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .