Page 1833 - Week 07 - Wednesday, 22 August 2007
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
identified after the December 2001 fires. Indeed, in 2002-03 the Emergency Services Bureau was already embarking on upgrading a computer-aided dispatch system for fire brigade and ambulance services.
On the back of its analysis of communications systems, the McLeod report concluded, first, that “coverage problems, particularly in the Brindabellas and other remote areas of the ACT, if necessary through supplementary use of mobile communication facilities” were needed. Secondly, “commonality across emergency services and compatibility with ACT Policing” was a need. That means a mobile data and vehicle location system, so that all services are able to interoperate. Thirdly, McLeod said that there was a need for “improved interservice compatibility”.
On the back of the McLeod recommendations, observations and conclusions, the appropriate moves were taken by government. They certainly were. In 2003-04 budget paper No 3, we saw outlined an initiative which clearly identified funds for the following purposes:
This initiative provides for an upgrade of the Emergency Services Bureau communications infrastructure that supports operational delivery of services by the Fire Brigade, Ambulance, Bushfire and Emergency Services to the community. It will provide radio interoperability with appropriate land management agencies’ response vehicles. The initiative includes a new radio communications system, portable emergency radio communications, mobile data and automatic vehicle location equipment, and radio relay equipment that support front line field personnel.
This initiative identified in budget paper 3 was clearly based on cabinet objectives drawn up in 2003-04. These were the objectives laid down by the government against which programs, including mobile data, were identified and managed by government—or, as it is now becoming quite clear, in many cases, grossly mismanaged by government.
There is another point to note here in terms of the argy-bargy currently underway between the government and the ex-commissioner, Mr Peter Dunn: these objectives for a mobile data communications system were set out well before the Emergency Services Authority was created in July 2004 and before Commissioner Peter Dunn assumed office. That is a very important point to note.
I want to now refer to the capabilities available in 2003-04 in terms of what the government needed to do to identify and develop a vehicle location system or a mobile data system—that is, the issue of whether the computer-aided dispatch system, the CAD system, might have done the job or whether the new project called FireLink was needed.
In my investigation of this matter, I have found two vigorous schools of thought about what sort of mobile data and vehicle locating communications system should have been introduced in 2004 hard on the heels of the McLeod inquiry.
Experienced ESB officers who continued serving with the new ESA in 2004-05 were adamant that ATI’s FireLink product, while an excellent system in other fields, was an expensive and too sophisticated overkill for the needs of the territory. Interestingly,
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .