Page 1618 - Week 05 - Wednesday, 10 May 2017
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
motions like this are not on the agenda, that is when there is complacency and that is when we are at real risk of slipping into a position whereby we could well have another 2003.
Mrs Jones’s motion, importantly, calls for the rationale behind the 2011 changes. That is something which I note the government are seeking to omit with their overarching amendment. The rationale is absolutely vital. It is all very well to say that changes have occurred. We need to know the reason for those changes occurring. We need to know what it is that is motivating the government into making the decisions that they are making because without that we would simply have to assume that the government are wise and are doing the right thing. We all know that governments can and do make mistakes, not necessarily deliberately, but mistakes do happen. It is our role as legislators and as, in effect, the reviewers of government, to ensure that the government are undertaking their responsibilities appropriately.
The Canberra Liberals have real concern about the removal of the rationale behind the 2011 changes. I would welcome a contribution from a government member to go into more detail as to why it is that they want those particular words omitted from Mrs Jones’s very good motion.
Amendment agreed to.
At 6 pm, in accordance with standing order 34, the debate was interrupted. The motion for the adjournment of the Assembly having been put and negatived, the debate was resumed.
MS LAWDER (Brindabella) (6.01): I will make a few brief comments regarding the amendment. It is quite disappointing that we have lost the explanation from the minister as to the reason for the changes. It is something that I think that not just we in this place but people throughout our community and our firefighters would be very happy to have more information about. It is a pity that we rushed through that without our having an opportunity to speak before the vote took place. It is an important matter. It is something that we all have an obligation to think long and hard about.
As Mr Rattenbury alluded to, our former colleague Mr Smyth often spoke very passionately about the need not to slip into complacency, the need to remain vigilant and the need to keep asking questions and be alert to ensuring that we have the best possible fire defence of our city, bounded as we are by forests all around, giving us the name of the bush capital.
There would have been no harm in the minister providing that information that Mrs Jones’s important motion asked for. I commend Mrs Jones for bringing that important motion to the Assembly today and I look forward to further debate on the matter.
MR WALL (Brindabella) (6.02): I will speak just long enough for the attendants to circulate the amendment which I will be moving very shortly to the amended motion. Simply put, that amendment seeks to reintroduce what was the original 2(a) in Mrs Jones’s motion, which called on the minister to report back to the Assembly on
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video