Page 1840 - Week 07 - Wednesday, 22 August 2007
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
But the matter goes on. On 12 December 2006, when he is asked a question, Mr Corbell says:
FireLink does work. It is operational currently in RFS and SES. It does work and it is an excellent piece of technology.
We all know that Mr Corbell, like myself, is an RFS volunteer, so no doubt he was speaking from not only ministerial experience but also from volunteer experience. He goes on to say, “It provides. It does provide.” If it does provide, if it does work and if it is an excellent piece of technology, why get rid of it? If it is not, why have you not corrected the record? You had an opportunity in the debate just now; you had 15 minutes in which to correct the record. You have not corrected the record; therefore, what you have said stands. We might get to matters about this later.
Mr Corbell goes on in answer to the supplementary question. Mr Pratt asked:
… how much longer will we have to wait and how much more money will have to be spent before FireLink works properly.
Mr Corbell says:
No more money has to be spent and no more time has to be waited because the system is now operational.
It is operational, Mr Corbell; it works! If it is operational, it has no more need for money. If it has no more time to be spent on it, if it is currently operational, if it provides our emergency services with abilities that were required of it, why get rid of it? If it had been working comprehensively for months at that stage—remember that this is December, so it is October, November and December, for three months it has been working comprehensively—why get rid of it? Why, Mr Corbell? Mr Speaker, that is the question that Mr Corbell has to answer: why?
If, as he purports, Mr Corbell was duped by the ESA in what they told him—a volunteer who has been in the field with this equipment—why has he not come back into this place and actually apologised and withdrawn his statements? His statements are unambiguous; they are clear. They are more than clear. We are throwing in adjectives: it is working comprehensively; it is fantastic. We have nothing from Mr Corbell except mute silence—Mr Corbell the serial interjector, Mr Corbell who always jumps to his defence, Mr Corbell who is wrong on this matter, Mr Speaker.
It needs to be on the record. The government did know, because Mr Pratt asked questions on notice. He got questions from the Chief Minister. The Chief Minister knew that this process went through the procurement board. The Chief Minister knew as well. We now know that JACS knew; we know that InTACT knew; we know that the Treasury-approved procurement unit knew. The Government Solicitor knew; the insurance commission knew; the procurement board knew; the Chief Minister knew. We have two ministers—not just one, but two ministers over a period of time, including Mr Hargreaves, who says that the FireLink system is fully operational. It was fully operational before April 2006 when Mr Corbell became the minister.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .