Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2003 Week 5 Hansard (7 May) . . Page.. 1662 ..

Mr S (continuing):

While annual payments in the second half of the 1990s were in the order of $5.5 to $5.8 million, these were calculated according to a formula handed down from earlier years that was not based on a detailed evaluation of the services being provided.

He goes on to say:

So he was spelling out the justification as to why there would be a reduction of the earlier fees in the order of $51/2 million and, therefore, to ask for $6.22 million was like chasing candy in the candy store. That was the point that the federal Department of Finance and Administration was making. But still there was no action on the part of the ACT government to resolve this issue.

Mr Speaker, the very poor and doggedly bureaucratic approach by the Chief Minister's Department in dealing with this matter reflects not only an unacceptable level of pig-headedness but also the type of poor strategic thinking and risk analysis which clearly has characterised this government's approach through 2002. You might argue that if the ACT had been in full flood and enjoying a solid rainy season, perhaps this bureaucratic approach would have been in order-sure, to squeeze every last dollar that could have been squeezed out of the federal authority. That might have been acceptable but this was, of course, not the case.

Mr Speaker, when you compare this laid-back attitude about the federal funding that should have been grabbed with the prevarication on the part of the government in dealing with the urban fire services communications problem, you are left with an unacceptable picture of this government's inability to organise itself for emergencies. While I am pleased to finally see that the government is putting $23 million into an upgrading of emergency services communications equipment and for communications systems, this has been a long time coming.

Remember, the fire union rang the alarm bells on this capability deficiency very soon after the December 2001 fires. In fact, as I recall, because we went to bat on behalf of the unions, the union's call was one of the lessons to be learnt coming out of the December 2001 fires. Those lessons were ignored. I applaud the union for continuing to push this issue, not only in terms of what was right for the safety of its own personnel but in terms of its capability.

So, Mr Speaker, we have two examples of irresponsibility in the wake of the 2001 fires, during a period in which we continued to suffer drought and in which all the forecasts predicted a dreadful fire season for 2002-03. And yet this government prevaricated on two fundamental emergency capability planning issues-firstly, the Commonwealth fire services payments, and then the matter of communications. But today we are focusing on the payments.

Mr Speaker, if I might summarise: this breakdown in communication between the Chief Minister's Department and the Finance-

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .