Page 595 - Week 03 - Thursday, 15 March 2007
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
All I can assume is that this is not a serious motion—because there was no attempt to explain why it was being put—but another chance for Mr P and his colleagues to grandstand. But it is not a solution to what are clearly deep-rooted problems which, it seems, have been exacerbated by the most recent restructure.
Mr Pratt wasted a good opportunity yesterday to put some relevant information before the Assembly. He moved a motion yesterday, but I have to say I listened to that very, very carefully and I do not believe he represented his constituents very well in putting their case. Perhaps that is why he had to come back with a no-confidence motion today—because he did not do the job very well yesterday.
I believe there is a real problem here, and it is not at all helped by the party-political divided approach to it. Pat Barling and Val Jeffery are the names I hear mentioned all the time. There may be others, but they are the names that get thrown around in this place. I believe they are very good sources of firefighting expertise. I have talked to Val Jeffery; I really enjoy talking to him. He is a bush expert. But I believe also that because they talk to the Liberals and the Liberals talk for them it does not help in this place, which is so divided along party lines. The more they are quoted by the Liberals the less inclined the government will be to listen to them. That is an observation; it is not a statement of fact, but it is what I have observed here today and many days in the recent weeks.
I said yesterday that I could only speak on Mr Pratt’s motion from information that was on the public record because that was the information that I had access to. I did not at that time have access to the thoughts and the opinions of the rural fire brigade, not to mention the state emergency services, the urban fire brigade and the ambulance. Well, this morning I had an opportunity to talk to officers of the rural fire brigade. I might say that none of them have ever approached me or sought to give me their point of view and I think that, given the way this has become a bipartisan issue, it would do those services well to talk to other people. In this case there is only one other person, and that is me. So this morning I began that conversation with the representative of the rural fire brigade and I arranged a further briefing. Still, I have got a long way to go before I feel well enough informed to support this motion.
Nonetheless, I will reiterate some of the points I have made in several speeches on this issue. First of all, remember that this issue really goes back a lot further than last week when the ESA was reorganised, and it goes back further than 2003 when we suffered those terrible fires. It goes back to prior to self-government. There are deep cultural issues here. The question is: how do we change the culture? It is fairly clear that we do not just change it with a restructure, because it has not changed. I do not believe it has changed. I have got a lot more work to do before I find out. And, believe me, I will do it, and I will do it deeply—I will not do it superficially and I will not play politics with it, because that is just not going to solve this problem.
There are basic questions that I want answered, and I want them answered on the public record. There is too much innuendo and rumour about this. There is too much in this town anyway, but about this issue it is rumour and innuendo. So let us get it on the public record: what went wrong with the Emergency Services Authority? What went wrong there? Was it just budget? Were there other issues? Were there
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .