Page 3032 - Week 08 - Thursday, 7 August 2008
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
the government’s functional review process is that everything was not dandy. It was very apparent from July 2006 onwards that fundamental services were beginning to suffer quite significantly. Perhaps the most obvious example of that was the slashing and burning of the bus network in 2006. That is why the Assembly said: “Come on; how did you make the sorts of rational decisions to come to that view? Give us a look at the documents. Give us a look at the papers.”
As Mr Smyth put so eloquently, as he usually does, the Chief Minister’s arrogant treatment of standing order 239 is proof of that arrogance. It is proof of that attitude that says: “Look, we’ll govern the way we want to govern. We kind of do take this town for granted, so we can govern in an arrogant way. We don’t really have to subject ourselves to any form of transparency. Therefore, leave it or lump it.” That is the way that this government works.
I want to focus on one area before the lunch break—that is, the Emergency Services Agency. It used to be called the Emergency Services Authority until the rationalisation got its little hands on it. I know that Mr Smyth has covered this in quite some detail but I will refer to it again. Peter Dunn, when he appeared before the legal affairs committee inquiry into the performance and organisation of the ESA, and into bushfire management and the organisation, was critical of the information et cetera which was provided to the functional review. I will repeat the quote of what Mr Dunn said on 20 June in relation to the disastrous decision to restructure the ESA. I am sure that Mr Smyth has tabled this, but I will repeat it for the benefit of the Hansard. He said that he had written formally to Mr Costello to advise that the report specifically excludes—
Debate interrupted in accordance with standing order 74 and the resumption of the debate made an order of the day for a later hour.
Sitting suspended from 12.30 to 2.30 pm.
Questions without notice
Gas-fired power station
MR SESELJA: My question is to the Minister for Health, Ms Gallagher. I refer to your answer to a question yesterday in regard to the gas-fired power station and data centre and the EIS, and the relationship with your health impact assessment steering group, when you said:
The decision we have taken is that the health impact assessment should run along with the full environmental impact assessment that is now underway. They have been rolled in together, and those processes will run concurrently.
Minister, we have been told by constituents that consultants, Golder Associates, have today informed them that the health impact assessment steering group has been scrapped. Can you confirm that this is the case? How do you reconcile this with your statements from yesterday?
MS GALLAGHER: I thank Mr Seselja for the question. The answer to the question is very simple. The health impact assessment is done by consultants which were
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .