Page 3865 - Week 13 - Tuesday, 4 December 2007
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
produces the FireLink system and the former commissioner and his team deserve the thanks and appreciation of the people of the ACT, not to be made scapegoats by the government, and this minister in particular.
Unlike many in this place, I have twice been to the headquarters of the company that produces the FireLink system twice and I have seen it in operation. Although I would be the first to admit that I am not a technical expert, I have been taken through the system and had it explained to me. The capabilities that it offered seemed to fit the bill of what is required to deal with a major emergency.
It is fairly common knowledge that during the trial period in a live operation during the Lone Pine fire the system successfully operated for eight days. I am also aware that a number of successful joint activities and extensive testing under the hand of the ESA steering group occurred after the procurement of FireLink, including successful live exercises involving the RFS and SES and including connection to ACT Fire Brigade officers in the ESA communications centre.
This successful testing was designed to validate the full operational introduction to service of the FireLink system. It is interesting that the Auditor-General does not appear to have been made aware of this additional testing at any stage of her investigation by the government or the ESA. Instead of an operational system that would have assisted with the ability of our emergency services to effectively respond to major incidents, we are left with nothing. Certainly the system’s replacement for the current fire season—something akin, I believe, Mr Pratt, to a whiteboard and some markers—does not inspire confidence.
Another example of the failure of this government to maintain an effective configuration of the ESA to deal with major incidents is the debacle over the planned new headquarters at Fairbairn. This move was developed and organised by the previous management of the ESA under the previous minister following one of the recommendations set out in McLeod. The ACT needs a headquarters and communications centre to meet the surge in demand that can be experienced in major operations. The previous minister did at least recognise this and announced publicly that the move would be completed by July 2007. I am advised that the buildings are still vacant as of this day.
Another example of the benefits that the new headquarters were to have provided was a training facility for all services. Without such a facility I understand that the fire brigade, for example, still has to travel to Sydney for specialist training in urban search and rescue operations. The government seems to have abandoned this project for a headquarters capable of providing all facilities needed to prepare, plan and respond to crises. It is another example of the government reducing the effectiveness of our emergency services in dealing with major issues. I also understand that the Incident Control Centre East that was developed at Fairbairn for the RFS has recently been closed down. This centre was to provide a capability for the tactical command of incidents by the RFS. This communications capacity is apparently no longer available.
The list goes on and on and, unfortunately, my time is somewhat limited. Suffice it to say that it is amazing that so many projects that were initiated in the aftermath of the
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .