Page 601 - Week 03 - Thursday, 15 March 2007
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
through a question on the Emergency Services Authority’s budget—and what a stumble it was. I would comment, too, on Mrs Burke. Quite frankly, I have no idea what Mrs Burke does in this place.
There we have it. Today we have the most succinct explanation of the Liberal Party’s angst with me around the bushfire. We have today, and I quote directly, “that the Chief Minister’s failing on 18 January 2003 was that he refused to overrule his firefighting experts”. We have it now in Hansard, from the shadow minister for emergency services: my failing on 18 January 2003 was, in the words of Mr Pratt, that I refused to overrule the experts.
My sin, my crime—the matter for which I am to be criticised in relation to the fire—is that I would not overrule the experts! As somebody who knows absolutely nothing about firefighting, I would not. Mr Pratt accuses me as somebody with no experience in firefighting. He says it again now. He repeats it: as a person with absolutely no experience in emergency services or in firefighting, I should have overruled those that were employed by the territory to fight fires, to deal with emergencies.
This is a remarkable proposition. The shadow minister for emergency services has just repeated it. He uses the fact that I refused to intervene—I refused to give directions to the head of the Emergency Services Authority—as a reason for why the minister for emergency services today should be asked to resign.
We need to go to the nub of this motion. We call it a no-confidence motion. What the Liberal Party has done today, in this place, is say that, because the minister for emergency services refuses to overrule the head of the Emergency Services Authority, he should resign. Today you have moved a motion asking the minister for emergency services to resign his portfolio responsibilities because he has refused to overrule the expert employed to manage emergency services within the territory.
This is a remarkable proposition. To what extent will shadow ministers, if elected—to what extent will members of the Liberal Party, if elected to government—pursue this particular philosophy in each of their portfolios? What role will Mr Pratt, as minister for emergency services, adopt in relation to the emergency services? Will he be out there at the fire front? Will he be directing volunteer firefighters—“This way”, “Run down this gully”, “Fire up that road”, “Put that fire out”? Will Mr Pratt grab the radio and direct the helicopters? Is that what he is suggesting?
Mr Pratt: That’s pathetic.
MR STANHOPE: This is pathetic, he says now, when he realises the logical conclusion of the position he has just put—that my failing on 18 January was that I refused to direct how to fight the fire. If that is your position, then what you are saying, Mr Pratt, is that if you were the minister for emergency services you would insist on retaining the right to direct firefighters how to fight fires. That is what you are saying.
Mr Pratt: I didn’t say that.
MR STANHOPE: You just criticised me for refusing to overrule Peter Lucas-Smith and Mike Castle on 18 January. You have stood here today and said that I must accept
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .