Page 3663 - Week 10 - Tuesday, 26 August 2008
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
I should also at this point thank the committee secretariat who worked very extensively and hard on this report. Ms Robina Jaffray, the secretary of this committee, put literally hours and hours into the drafting of this report and the research into this report. Nicola Derigo did the issues paper that came out at the end of last year. Damelza-Rose Gale has done quite a bit of research. I would also like to say—it does not actually say it in here but Mr Derek Abbott filled in while Ms Jaffray was on sick leave earlier this year—Mr Abbott organised a number of the hearings and filled in at the secretariat functions for those hearings.
The Assembly will note that there are two dissenting reports. The chair has already spoken on his dissenting report. I have also put in some additional dissenting comments. I think those are fairly clear. They are in the back of the report at page 131 of volume 1 of the report. There are, of course, two volumes.
As I just said, each of the members of the committee has different views on a number of things, whether it be on the issue of fuel load and ways to deal with the management of fuel load or the provision of tankers, et cetera, through the Emergency Services Agency and JACS. Mr Stefaniak has put on the record his opinion that the ESA should become a statutory authority.
There were a number of those things in the original report. A number of the recommendations got taken out. As a result, Mr Stefaniak has put them into his dissenting report. The time that we had to deliberate on this report meant that there was an oversight, possibly on my part, in that some of those recommendations were taken out, as has been said, but I believe that the surrounding paragraphs that should have come out as well were not taken out. That is part of the reason that I have put in the additional comments. I could go on further, but I think my comments in the back of the report are fairly self-explanatory.
Mr Stefaniak has made much about the fact that he does not believe we are ready if there were to be another event. Of course, I am sure that all of us in this place are hopeful and prayerful, in some of our cases, that that will never be the case and that it will never be tested to that extent. But I would say that I do not agree with Mr Stefaniak on that.
I think the minister for emergency services, when he came before the committee, clearly outlined the great deal of money and effort that have been put into reforming this area and putting extra resources into this area. The minister might correct me, but I think it is something along the lines of an increase of approximately 84 per cent in budgetary terms in this area. That is a massive increase.
Of course, it is not all just about putting extra money in, but I do not believe it has just been extra money that has been put into this area. There has been a great deal of consideration. Yes, I know that there is a difficulty in that a number of the volunteers do not necessarily see eye to eye with the emergency services commissioner, but that does not mean that we are unprepared. I do not think that that has been proven. It has not been proven that we will not be prepared for an emergency event. There are question marks around things but, if you take a magnifying glass to any area within
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .