Page 3639 - Week 12 - Tuesday, 28 October 2014
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
to respond. But if it is not, then I do not understand the logic for the existing 8A(3) disappearing. There is no logical reason for it to disappear. It stands quite neatly with the amendment and it would stand quite neatly still with the proposed amendment that I understand is to be circulated, as notice was given.
All four could effectively stand. The existing 8A(1) would stand. The proposed 8A(2) would come in. The existing 8A(3) would stand. The new definition of what coordination means could come in as well. But as soon as you remove the existing 8A(3) what will happen is exactly what I am told happened at the Sydney Building fire, that the commissioner was on the fire ground.
The excuse in the paper this morning was that he was getting information so that he could brief the government. I understand that has never happened before, that what they normally do is complete the fire and then they brief the government, because it is very hard to brief somebody when you are halfway through an emergency and you are trying to get a handle on it or you are conducting operations.
To actually have to stop and tell the commissioner so that the commissioner can run away and tell the government that this is what is happening is ridiculous. I do not know why anyone would put an officer on the ground through that dilemma: “Do I keep my eye on the fire or do I talk to my superior so that he can go and talk to his superior and he can brief the government?” That is an unrealistic and unfair expectation to be placed on any officer.
We all know that emergencies can take a twist and turn at the drop of a hat. A gust of a wind, and they can get out of control. And you only have to look at last night. There was a control burn; a gust of wind and it jumped the containment lines. Other units had to respond. If the phone is going to ring or the commissioner is going to turn up and seek information for the government then and there on the spot I think that is just plain unfair and shows you have no understanding of what goes on, on the fire ground or on emergency ground, if you think that is a reasonable thing to happen.
If you think it is a reasonable excuse that the commissioner go onto an emergency ground, as was done at the Sydney Building, and seek information for the government—the number one priority is the safety of lives and the protection of property and making sure that the emergency is addressed immediately—the government can wait its turn to find out what is going on. If there is a need for the government to be told of an impending danger or a greater danger I am sure the officer on the ground in charge of the emergency will say, “We need to expand operations.”
I think we have to trust the officers that we have in our emergency services. They are well trained and they do a good job. We have to give them our faith and our belief that they are doing a good job without them having to look over their shoulder all the time as to whether the commissioner may or may not turn up and may or may not, according to the amendment, direct the chief officer to undertake response or recovery operations.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video