Page 69 - Week 01 - Tuesday, 14 February 2006

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


for ACT fire service organisations went from $42.2 million in 2000-01 down to $23.6 million in 2001-02 and slowly back up to $43.5 million in 2004-05.

It seems that, despite the growth in ACT fire service organisation volunteers, there was a dramatic dip in the level of government support provided to them at times during the last four to five years, and only now are we back to where we started from. I note that it was at the time when funding was lowest that the devastating fires of January 2003 occurred. That was a very unfortunate conjunction of events, but I am not suggesting that it was a causal relationship. Nonetheless, something seems amiss and I feel the need to highlight, once again, some of the points I made in speaking to Mr Pratt’s motion of 15 December last year concerning the Emergency Services Authority.

Late in 2005, a number of concerns were raised about the ESA’s use of funding and the standard of governance. The Auditor-General’s 2004-05 financial audit of agencies noted that ESA’s 2004-05 employee expenses were less than the amount budgeted by $3.2 million, as the authority did not fill all planned positions during the year, and the budgeted operating surplus was not achieved due to capital injection funding not being fully drawn down because of the discontinuation of two major projects. Whilst I do not believe that in the first year of operation a $3.2 million or 12 per cent underspending on staff is a sign of terminal mismanagement, it does indicate that this is an area to be watched closely.

There were also concerns regarding the ACT government’s lack of promised funding for community fire units and the lack of progress in constructing a new ESA headquarters and training facility, which I now understand is going ahead and is causing a chain of consequences, most particularly to a childcare facility that is much needed in Canberra. And then there were the media reports that some volunteers were disgruntled with the ESA, citing a lack of adequate resourcing, be it for chainsaws or first-aid kits, and their limited capacity to speak out about problems. I acknowledge that the relations between the professional arm of the ESA and its volunteers are hugely important if it is to function effectively. While these reports are still hearsay to me, if and when they are substantiated there would be cause for concern.

It is important that we properly value the time put in by this pleasing number of volunteers on the ACT books, but we should not get too carried away because without adequate support the number of people prepared to volunteer does not translate into the impact that they can have.

MRS BURKE (Molonglo) (4.44): One can see from the matter of public importance today why Ms Porter was awarded the volunteer doll for Christmas by Mr Quinlan. I mean that sincerely, because she never misses an opportunity to applaud our wonderful volunteers and this area certainly is her speciality. I do, however, echo Mr Pratt’s inference that the Stanhope government is intent on trumpeting the wonderful results it has gleaned from the most recent Productivity Commission report, yet it is only too quick also to shy away from, and dismiss, any figures in other portfolio areas that do not paint a positive picture.

Having a bob each way seems to be an atypical approach. Naturally, governments take such an opportunity to expose the positives and ignore the sometimes critical elements of any reporting process that aims to ensure that one of the greatest forms of information


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