Page 504 - Week 03 - Wednesday, 14 March 2007
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
process. Let’s give it a go. We are not experts. Whatever we say, we are not experts on it and we do have to take in the full information before we go judging it.
I brought up a few questions when I spoke to the no confidence motion and I do have concerns, possibly because we have never seen the Costello review document on which, I believe, the budgetary decision was made to change the ESA into the ESB. To me, that is still the basic question. We never got that functional review document and we do not know the thinking behind this change, except that it was made for budgetary reasons. I have not heard anything to convince me one way or the other and that is why my mind remains open.
I would like to know what the problems were with the ESA at the time of the 2003 fires. People are now saying that the response was inadequate. What made that happen? What happened after the restructure in response to the McLeod report? We know that there were problems with overspending. We know that there were late annual reports, revised annual reports. That indicates that there were issues there, but they have never been brought out into the open. I believe that people in the community think that there is still potential for the ESB to maintain its independence within JACS. At the moment, there is the reassurance from JACS that it will not interfere. That apparently has been the case to date. Of course, a change in the leadership of JACS could change that situation.
I want the ESB to report on exactly these matters. When the annual report comes out from JACS, if the ESB does not have the ability to present its own separate report, I want a very complete section in that annual report which shows that exactly the things the government promises have been happening, because only in that way can we judge. Too much has been going on behind closed doors here. The public wants transparency, especially after those fires, because the community is affected by these government decisions. It has not been there.
If we are going to have an inquiry, that is the inquiry I want to have. What are the cultural problems? Have they been fixed? McLeod thought that the authority was a way to fix it. Was it? Did it? Is that why it has been disbanded? Those are the questions that we need to ask. As I have mentioned several times, I do think that this business plan is light on community consultation and community learning.
I have talked about a fire guard. There is too much treating the community here like it is a passive recipient of information. That is not the case. We need the community alongside us on this. They are half the battle to making sure that we do not have another 2003, with all that destruction, those lives lost and those houses lost. Unless the community is with us, has trust in the government, sees more transparency, wants to be informed, wants to be part of the plans, then forget it—we have got a problem—and the opposition will keep on harping because they will have that opportunity, and I think the government needs to remove it from them.
MR SMYTH (Brindabella) (11.09): Paragraph (2) of Mr Corbell’s amendment states:
(2) that this Assembly congratulates the staff of the ACT emergency services who continue to keep our community safe.”.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .