Page 2534 - Week 10 - Tuesday, 13 October 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MR WOOD: I wonder why we need to do this.
Mr Kaine: Do you read them all before we discuss them?
MR WOOD: I expect you to go through them all.
MADAM SPEAKER: Order!
LEAVE OF ABSENCE TO MEMBER
Motion (by Ms Szuty) agreed to:
That leave of absence be given to Mr Moore for this sitting.
ROAD RESCUE SERVICES
Discussion of Matter of Public Importance
MADAM SPEAKER: I have received letters from Mr Lamont and Mr Moore proposing that matters of public importance be submitted to the Assembly. In accordance with standing order 79, I have determined that the matter proposed by Mr Moore be submitted to the Assembly, namely:
The failure of the Labor Government to resolve the continuing conflicts and excessive expenditure in relation to road rescue services.
MS SZUTY (3.08): Madam Speaker, the page 2 story from this morning's Canberra Times on the fatal accident in McKellar on Sunday will cause ACT residents more than a little fear and distress. If the community feels that we cannot rely on the professionalism of road rescue services, how then will they feel confident about what happens at accident scenes? The example quoted in the Canberra Times shows just how far relations between the two principal road accident response groups have deteriorated. There appears to be no end to the animosity existing between Fire Brigade and police rescue officers, to the point where they will argue publicly at the scene of a fatality.
At this point I wish to convey to the relatives of the man who was killed in that accident and all others involved my heartfelt sympathy and my embarrassment that such a tragedy was marred by such rivalry. The question can be asked: What has caused this situation? Further, why cannot a satisfactory solution be found to the dilemma of having two rescue services in a city the size of Canberra? An agreement was struck to separate the ACT into two zones, north side and south side, in 1991, after a tripartite arrangement which had existed between 1980 and 1983 was deemed to be too problematic, and subsequent arrangements fell through. Since that time an uneasy truce has existed, at least publicly, and, despite the occasional complication, the services have been seen to respect that arrangement.
The Attorney-General, earlier this year, extended that arrangement, with a proviso that the first unit capable of reaching an accident should be the first to respond, regardless of the imaginary north-south divide. It appears that this is not providing the solution required by police and Fire Brigade officers, if
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .