❓ A parliamentary question regarding the Minister's comments on FESA's responsibility and the Keelty Report, focusing on the Minister's understanding and actions taken to resolve issues within FESA. The Minister's response clarifies his statements and actions, leading to heated debate.
AnsweredQoN 493Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
FIRE AND EMERGENCY SERVICES AUTHORITY — KEELTY REPORT
I refer to the minister’s comments made at a press conference yesterday when, according to my notes, the minister said — It’s not my responsibility; it’s the (FESA’s) board responsibility for the day to day running of the authority, that’s the problem. The problems in relation to FESA, I genuinely thought they were getting better. (1) When the minister referred to problems, what exactly did he mean? (2) What actions did the minister take personally to resolve these issues? (3) As minister, how did he come to the assumption that things were getting better? Mr R.F. JOHNSON
I refer to the minister’s comments made at a press conference yesterday when, according to my notes, the minister said — It’s not my responsibility; it’s the (FESA’s) board responsibility for the day to day running of the authority, that’s the problem. The problems in relation to FESA, I genuinely thought they were getting better. (1) When the minister referred to problems, what exactly did he mean? (2) What actions did the minister take personally to resolve these issues? (3) As minister, how did he come to the assumption that things were getting better? Mr R.F. JOHNSON
AnswerView source ↗
(1)– (3) I know that the member for Girrawheen is an avid admirer of my press conferences; she gatecrashes them whenever she is around, and I welcome her presence there. She was not there yesterday, though, but she is obviously commenting from something. What I said was that the responsibility, of course, was initially on the board from the CEO. In relation to problems, I was referring to the problems on the day of the fire and the problems that obviously came out from the Keelty report. Problems within FESA, I believe, were directed at the fire that took place and the fact that it did not follow the protocol and so forth. Mr E.S. Ripper : That’s not credible! That’s misleading! Mr R.F. JOHNSON : Why does the Leader of the Opposition not let me finish? Mr E.S. Ripper : Because you are misleading the house! Mr R.F. JOHNSON : No, I am not. Mr E.S. Ripper : You are not telling the truth! Mr R.F. JOHNSON : I am telling the truth. As I said, I was aware of some problems in relation to the way FESA conducted management of the fire and in relation to its relationship with the Department of Environment and Conservation and other agencies—or DEC in this instance. That is what I was referring to. I did not take responsibility for what happened on the day—of course I would not. I was not there. I would not be expected to be there. I should not be there and get in the way of our firefighters. It would be absolutely wrong if I did. That is why I said—and certainly what I meant—I do not take responsibility for what happened with the problems in relation to FESA; it was in relation to what was happening on the day, and I do not resile from those comments. But in day-to-day actions and in day-to-day—if the member likes—communication, it certainly was between the CEO and the board initially, as the board had the responsibility. I have had meetings with the executive of FESA time and time again—of course I have—and that is what I was referring to.
The problems in relation to FESA, I genuinely thought they were getting better.
(2) What actions did the minister take personally to resolve these issues? (3) As minister, how did he come to the assumption that things were getting better? Mr R.F. JOHNSON replied: (1)– (3) I know that the member for Girrawheen is an avid admirer of my press conferences; she gatecrashes them whenever she is around, and I welcome her presence there. She was not there yesterday, though, but she is obviously commenting from something. What I said was that the responsibility, of course, was initially on the board from the CEO. In relation to problems, I was referring to the problems on the day of the fire and the problems that obviously came out from the Keelty report. Problems within FESA, I believe, were directed at the fire that took place and the fact that it did not follow the protocol and so forth. Mr E.S. Ripper : That’s not credible! That’s misleading! Mr R.F. JOHNSON : Why does the Leader of the Opposition not let me finish? Mr E.S. Ripper : Because you are misleading the house! Mr R.F. JOHNSON : No, I am not. Mr E.S. Ripper : You are not telling the truth! Mr R.F. JOHNSON : I am telling the truth. As I said, I was aware of some problems in relation to the way FESA conducted management of the fire and in relation to its relationship with the Department of Environment and Conservation and other agencies—or DEC in this instance. That is what I was referring to. I did not take responsibility for what happened on the day—of course I would not. I was not there. I would not be expected to be there. I should not be there and get in the way of our firefighters. It would be absolutely wrong if I did. That is why I said—and certainly what I meant—I do not take responsibility for what happened with the problems in relation to FESA; it was in relation to what was happening on the day, and I do not resile from those comments. But in day-to-day actions and in day-to-day—if the member likes—communication, it certainly was between the CEO and the board initially, as the board had the responsibility. I have had meetings with the executive of FESA time and time again—of course I have—and that is what I was referring to.
(3) As minister, how did he come to the assumption that things were getting better? Mr R.F. JOHNSON replied: (1)– (3) I know that the member for Girrawheen is an avid admirer of my press conferences; she gatecrashes them whenever she is around, and I welcome her presence there. She was not there yesterday, though, but she is obviously commenting from something. What I said was that the responsibility, of course, was initially on the board from the CEO. In relation to problems, I was referring to the problems on the day of the fire and the problems that obviously came out from the Keelty report. Problems within FESA, I believe, were directed at the fire that took place and the fact that it did not follow the protocol and so forth. Mr E.S. Ripper : That’s not credible! That’s misleading! Mr R.F. JOHNSON : Why does the Leader of the Opposition not let me finish? Mr E.S. Ripper : Because you are misleading the house! Mr R.F. JOHNSON : No, I am not. Mr E.S. Ripper : You are not telling the truth! Mr R.F. JOHNSON : I am telling the truth. As I said, I was aware of some problems in relation to the way FESA conducted management of the fire and in relation to its relationship with the Department of Environment and Conservation and other agencies—or DEC in this instance. That is what I was referring to. I did not take responsibility for what happened on the day—of course I would not. I was not there. I would not be expected to be there. I should not be there and get in the way of our firefighters. It would be absolutely wrong if I did. That is why I said—and certainly what I meant—I do not take responsibility for what happened with the problems in relation to FESA; it was in relation to what was happening on the day, and I do not resile from those comments. But in day-to-day actions and in day-to-day—if the member likes—communication, it certainly was between the CEO and the board initially, as the board had the responsibility. I have had meetings with the executive of FESA time and time again—of course I have—and that is what I was referring to.
Mr R.F. JOHNSON replied: (1)– (3) I know that the member for Girrawheen is an avid admirer of my press conferences; she gatecrashes them whenever she is around, and I welcome her presence there. She was not there yesterday, though, but she is obviously commenting from something. What I said was that the responsibility, of course, was initially on the board from the CEO. In relation to problems, I was referring to the problems on the day of the fire and the problems that obviously came out from the Keelty report. Problems within FESA, I believe, were directed at the fire that took place and the fact that it did not follow the protocol and so forth. Mr E.S. Ripper : That’s not credible! That’s misleading! Mr R.F. JOHNSON : Why does the Leader of the Opposition not let me finish? Mr E.S. Ripper : Because you are misleading the house! Mr R.F. JOHNSON : No, I am not. Mr E.S. Ripper : You are not telling the truth! Mr R.F. JOHNSON : I am telling the truth. As I said, I was aware of some problems in relation to the way FESA conducted management of the fire and in relation to its relationship with the Department of Environment and Conservation and other agencies—or DEC in this instance. That is what I was referring to. I did not take responsibility for what happened on the day—of course I would not. I was not there. I would not be expected to be there. I should not be there and get in the way of our firefighters. It would be absolutely wrong if I did. That is why I said—and certainly what I meant—I do not take responsibility for what happened with the problems in relation to FESA; it was in relation to what was happening on the day, and I do not resile from those comments. But in day-to-day actions and in day-to-day—if the member likes—communication, it certainly was between the CEO and the board initially, as the board had the responsibility. I have had meetings with the executive of FESA time and time again—of course I have—and that is what I was referring to.
(1)– (3) I know that the member for Girrawheen is an avid admirer of my press conferences; she gatecrashes them whenever she is around, and I welcome her presence there. She was not there yesterday, though, but she is obviously commenting from something. What I said was that the responsibility, of course, was initially on the board from the CEO. In relation to problems, I was referring to the problems on the day of the fire and the problems that obviously came out from the Keelty report. Problems within FESA, I believe, were directed at the fire that took place and the fact that it did not follow the protocol and so forth. Mr E.S. Ripper : That’s not credible! That’s misleading! Mr R.F. JOHNSON : Why does the Leader of the Opposition not let me finish? Mr E.S. Ripper : Because you are misleading the house! Mr R.F. JOHNSON : No, I am not. Mr E.S. Ripper : You are not telling the truth! Mr R.F. JOHNSON : I am telling the truth. As I said, I was aware of some problems in relation to the way FESA conducted management of the fire and in relation to its relationship with the Department of Environment and Conservation and other agencies—or DEC in this instance. That is what I was referring to. I did not take responsibility for what happened on the day—of course I would not. I was not there. I would not be expected to be there. I should not be there and get in the way of our firefighters. It would be absolutely wrong if I did. That is why I said—and certainly what I meant—I do not take responsibility for what happened with the problems in relation to FESA; it was in relation to what was happening on the day, and I do not resile from those comments. But in day-to-day actions and in day-to-day—if the member likes—communication, it certainly was between the CEO and the board initially, as the board had the responsibility. I have had meetings with the executive of FESA time and time again—of course I have—and that is what I was referring to.
Mr E.S. Ripper : That’s not credible! That’s misleading! Mr R.F. JOHNSON : Why does the Leader of the Opposition not let me finish? Mr E.S. Ripper : Because you are misleading the house! Mr R.F. JOHNSON : No, I am not. Mr E.S. Ripper : You are not telling the truth! Mr R.F. JOHNSON : I am telling the truth. As I said, I was aware of some problems in relation to the way FESA conducted management of the fire and in relation to its relationship with the Department of Environment and Conservation and other agencies—or DEC in this instance. That is what I was referring to. I did not take responsibility for what happened on the day—of course I would not. I was not there. I would not be expected to be there. I should not be there and get in the way of our firefighters. It would be absolutely wrong if I did. That is why I said—and certainly what I meant—I do not take responsibility for what happened with the problems in relation to FESA; it was in relation to what was happening on the day, and I do not resile from those comments. But in day-to-day actions and in day-to-day—if the member likes—communication, it certainly was between the CEO and the board initially, as the board had the responsibility. I have had meetings with the executive of FESA time and time again—of course I have—and that is what I was referring to.
Mr R.F. JOHNSON : Why does the Leader of the Opposition not let me finish? Mr E.S. Ripper : Because you are misleading the house! Mr R.F. JOHNSON : No, I am not. Mr E.S. Ripper : You are not telling the truth! Mr R.F. JOHNSON : I am telling the truth. As I said, I was aware of some problems in relation to the way FESA conducted management of the fire and in relation to its relationship with the Department of Environment and Conservation and other agencies—or DEC in this instance. That is what I was referring to. I did not take responsibility for what happened on the day—of course I would not. I was not there. I would not be expected to be there. I should not be there and get in the way of our firefighters. It would be absolutely wrong if I did. That is why I said—and certainly what I meant—I do not take responsibility for what happened with the problems in relation to FESA; it was in relation to what was happening on the day, and I do not resile from those comments. But in day-to-day actions and in day-to-day—if the member likes—communication, it certainly was between the CEO and the board initially, as the board had the responsibility. I have had meetings with the executive of FESA time and time again—of course I have—and that is what I was referring to.
Mr E.S. Ripper : Because you are misleading the house! Mr R.F. JOHNSON : No, I am not. Mr E.S. Ripper : You are not telling the truth! Mr R.F. JOHNSON : I am telling the truth. As I said, I was aware of some problems in relation to the way FESA conducted management of the fire and in relation to its relationship with the Department of Environment and Conservation and other agencies—or DEC in this instance. That is what I was referring to. I did not take responsibility for what happened on the day—of course I would not. I was not there. I would not be expected to be there. I should not be there and get in the way of our firefighters. It would be absolutely wrong if I did. That is why I said—and certainly what I meant—I do not take responsibility for what happened with the problems in relation to FESA; it was in relation to what was happening on the day, and I do not resile from those comments. But in day-to-day actions and in day-to-day—if the member likes—communication, it certainly was between the CEO and the board initially, as the board had the responsibility. I have had meetings with the executive of FESA time and time again—of course I have—and that is what I was referring to.
Mr R.F. JOHNSON : No, I am not. Mr E.S. Ripper : You are not telling the truth! Mr R.F. JOHNSON : I am telling the truth. As I said, I was aware of some problems in relation to the way FESA conducted management of the fire and in relation to its relationship with the Department of Environment and Conservation and other agencies—or DEC in this instance. That is what I was referring to. I did not take responsibility for what happened on the day—of course I would not. I was not there. I would not be expected to be there. I should not be there and get in the way of our firefighters. It would be absolutely wrong if I did. That is why I said—and certainly what I meant—I do not take responsibility for what happened with the problems in relation to FESA; it was in relation to what was happening on the day, and I do not resile from those comments. But in day-to-day actions and in day-to-day—if the member likes—communication, it certainly was between the CEO and the board initially, as the board had the responsibility. I have had meetings with the executive of FESA time and time again—of course I have—and that is what I was referring to.
Mr E.S. Ripper : You are not telling the truth! Mr R.F. JOHNSON : I am telling the truth. As I said, I was aware of some problems in relation to the way FESA conducted management of the fire and in relation to its relationship with the Department of Environment and Conservation and other agencies—or DEC in this instance. That is what I was referring to. I did not take responsibility for what happened on the day—of course I would not. I was not there. I would not be expected to be there. I should not be there and get in the way of our firefighters. It would be absolutely wrong if I did. That is why I said—and certainly what I meant—I do not take responsibility for what happened with the problems in relation to FESA; it was in relation to what was happening on the day, and I do not resile from those comments. But in day-to-day actions and in day-to-day—if the member likes—communication, it certainly was between the CEO and the board initially, as the board had the responsibility. I have had meetings with the executive of FESA time and time again—of course I have—and that is what I was referring to.
Mr R.F. JOHNSON : I am telling the truth. As I said, I was aware of some problems in relation to the way FESA conducted management of the fire and in relation to its relationship with the Department of Environment and Conservation and other agencies—or DEC in this instance. That is what I was referring to. I did not take responsibility for what happened on the day—of course I would not. I was not there. I would not be expected to be there. I should not be there and get in the way of our firefighters. It would be absolutely wrong if I did. That is why I said—and certainly what I meant—I do not take responsibility for what happened with the problems in relation to FESA; it was in relation to what was happening on the day, and I do not resile from those comments. But in day-to-day actions and in day-to-day—if the member likes—communication, it certainly was between the CEO and the board initially, as the board had the responsibility. I have had meetings with the executive of FESA time and time again—of course I have—and that is what I was referring to.
The problems in relation to FESA, I genuinely thought they were getting better.
(2) What actions did the minister take personally to resolve these issues? (3) As minister, how did he come to the assumption that things were getting better? Mr R.F. JOHNSON replied: (1)– (3) I know that the member for Girrawheen is an avid admirer of my press conferences; she gatecrashes them whenever she is around, and I welcome her presence there. She was not there yesterday, though, but she is obviously commenting from something. What I said was that the responsibility, of course, was initially on the board from the CEO. In relation to problems, I was referring to the problems on the day of the fire and the problems that obviously came out from the Keelty report. Problems within FESA, I believe, were directed at the fire that took place and the fact that it did not follow the protocol and so forth. Mr E.S. Ripper : That’s not credible! That’s misleading! Mr R.F. JOHNSON : Why does the Leader of the Opposition not let me finish? Mr E.S. Ripper : Because you are misleading the house! Mr R.F. JOHNSON : No, I am not. Mr E.S. Ripper : You are not telling the truth! Mr R.F. JOHNSON : I am telling the truth. As I said, I was aware of some problems in relation to the way FESA conducted management of the fire and in relation to its relationship with the Department of Environment and Conservation and other agencies—or DEC in this instance. That is what I was referring to. I did not take responsibility for what happened on the day—of course I would not. I was not there. I would not be expected to be there. I should not be there and get in the way of our firefighters. It would be absolutely wrong if I did. That is why I said—and certainly what I meant—I do not take responsibility for what happened with the problems in relation to FESA; it was in relation to what was happening on the day, and I do not resile from those comments. But in day-to-day actions and in day-to-day—if the member likes—communication, it certainly was between the CEO and the board initially, as the board had the responsibility. I have had meetings with the executive of FESA time and time again—of course I have—and that is what I was referring to.
(3) As minister, how did he come to the assumption that things were getting better? Mr R.F. JOHNSON replied: (1)– (3) I know that the member for Girrawheen is an avid admirer of my press conferences; she gatecrashes them whenever she is around, and I welcome her presence there. She was not there yesterday, though, but she is obviously commenting from something. What I said was that the responsibility, of course, was initially on the board from the CEO. In relation to problems, I was referring to the problems on the day of the fire and the problems that obviously came out from the Keelty report. Problems within FESA, I believe, were directed at the fire that took place and the fact that it did not follow the protocol and so forth. Mr E.S. Ripper : That’s not credible! That’s misleading! Mr R.F. JOHNSON : Why does the Leader of the Opposition not let me finish? Mr E.S. Ripper : Because you are misleading the house! Mr R.F. JOHNSON : No, I am not. Mr E.S. Ripper : You are not telling the truth! Mr R.F. JOHNSON : I am telling the truth. As I said, I was aware of some problems in relation to the way FESA conducted management of the fire and in relation to its relationship with the Department of Environment and Conservation and other agencies—or DEC in this instance. That is what I was referring to. I did not take responsibility for what happened on the day—of course I would not. I was not there. I would not be expected to be there. I should not be there and get in the way of our firefighters. It would be absolutely wrong if I did. That is why I said—and certainly what I meant—I do not take responsibility for what happened with the problems in relation to FESA; it was in relation to what was happening on the day, and I do not resile from those comments. But in day-to-day actions and in day-to-day—if the member likes—communication, it certainly was between the CEO and the board initially, as the board had the responsibility. I have had meetings with the executive of FESA time and time again—of course I have—and that is what I was referring to.
Mr R.F. JOHNSON replied: (1)– (3) I know that the member for Girrawheen is an avid admirer of my press conferences; she gatecrashes them whenever she is around, and I welcome her presence there. She was not there yesterday, though, but she is obviously commenting from something. What I said was that the responsibility, of course, was initially on the board from the CEO. In relation to problems, I was referring to the problems on the day of the fire and the problems that obviously came out from the Keelty report. Problems within FESA, I believe, were directed at the fire that took place and the fact that it did not follow the protocol and so forth. Mr E.S. Ripper : That’s not credible! That’s misleading! Mr R.F. JOHNSON : Why does the Leader of the Opposition not let me finish? Mr E.S. Ripper : Because you are misleading the house! Mr R.F. JOHNSON : No, I am not. Mr E.S. Ripper : You are not telling the truth! Mr R.F. JOHNSON : I am telling the truth. As I said, I was aware of some problems in relation to the way FESA conducted management of the fire and in relation to its relationship with the Department of Environment and Conservation and other agencies—or DEC in this instance. That is what I was referring to. I did not take responsibility for what happened on the day—of course I would not. I was not there. I would not be expected to be there. I should not be there and get in the way of our firefighters. It would be absolutely wrong if I did. That is why I said—and certainly what I meant—I do not take responsibility for what happened with the problems in relation to FESA; it was in relation to what was happening on the day, and I do not resile from those comments. But in day-to-day actions and in day-to-day—if the member likes—communication, it certainly was between the CEO and the board initially, as the board had the responsibility. I have had meetings with the executive of FESA time and time again—of course I have—and that is what I was referring to.
(1)– (3) I know that the member for Girrawheen is an avid admirer of my press conferences; she gatecrashes them whenever she is around, and I welcome her presence there. She was not there yesterday, though, but she is obviously commenting from something. What I said was that the responsibility, of course, was initially on the board from the CEO. In relation to problems, I was referring to the problems on the day of the fire and the problems that obviously came out from the Keelty report. Problems within FESA, I believe, were directed at the fire that took place and the fact that it did not follow the protocol and so forth. Mr E.S. Ripper : That’s not credible! That’s misleading! Mr R.F. JOHNSON : Why does the Leader of the Opposition not let me finish? Mr E.S. Ripper : Because you are misleading the house! Mr R.F. JOHNSON : No, I am not. Mr E.S. Ripper : You are not telling the truth! Mr R.F. JOHNSON : I am telling the truth. As I said, I was aware of some problems in relation to the way FESA conducted management of the fire and in relation to its relationship with the Department of Environment and Conservation and other agencies—or DEC in this instance. That is what I was referring to. I did not take responsibility for what happened on the day—of course I would not. I was not there. I would not be expected to be there. I should not be there and get in the way of our firefighters. It would be absolutely wrong if I did. That is why I said—and certainly what I meant—I do not take responsibility for what happened with the problems in relation to FESA; it was in relation to what was happening on the day, and I do not resile from those comments. But in day-to-day actions and in day-to-day—if the member likes—communication, it certainly was between the CEO and the board initially, as the board had the responsibility. I have had meetings with the executive of FESA time and time again—of course I have—and that is what I was referring to.
Mr E.S. Ripper : That’s not credible! That’s misleading! Mr R.F. JOHNSON : Why does the Leader of the Opposition not let me finish? Mr E.S. Ripper : Because you are misleading the house! Mr R.F. JOHNSON : No, I am not. Mr E.S. Ripper : You are not telling the truth! Mr R.F. JOHNSON : I am telling the truth. As I said, I was aware of some problems in relation to the way FESA conducted management of the fire and in relation to its relationship with the Department of Environment and Conservation and other agencies—or DEC in this instance. That is what I was referring to. I did not take responsibility for what happened on the day—of course I would not. I was not there. I would not be expected to be there. I should not be there and get in the way of our firefighters. It would be absolutely wrong if I did. That is why I said—and certainly what I meant—I do not take responsibility for what happened with the problems in relation to FESA; it was in relation to what was happening on the day, and I do not resile from those comments. But in day-to-day actions and in day-to-day—if the member likes—communication, it certainly was between the CEO and the board initially, as the board had the responsibility. I have had meetings with the executive of FESA time and time again—of course I have—and that is what I was referring to.
Mr R.F. JOHNSON : Why does the Leader of the Opposition not let me finish? Mr E.S. Ripper : Because you are misleading the house! Mr R.F. JOHNSON : No, I am not. Mr E.S. Ripper : You are not telling the truth! Mr R.F. JOHNSON : I am telling the truth. As I said, I was aware of some problems in relation to the way FESA conducted management of the fire and in relation to its relationship with the Department of Environment and Conservation and other agencies—or DEC in this instance. That is what I was referring to. I did not take responsibility for what happened on the day—of course I would not. I was not there. I would not be expected to be there. I should not be there and get in the way of our firefighters. It would be absolutely wrong if I did. That is why I said—and certainly what I meant—I do not take responsibility for what happened with the problems in relation to FESA; it was in relation to what was happening on the day, and I do not resile from those comments. But in day-to-day actions and in day-to-day—if the member likes—communication, it certainly was between the CEO and the board initially, as the board had the responsibility. I have had meetings with the executive of FESA time and time again—of course I have—and that is what I was referring to.
Mr E.S. Ripper : Because you are misleading the house! Mr R.F. JOHNSON : No, I am not. Mr E.S. Ripper : You are not telling the truth! Mr R.F. JOHNSON : I am telling the truth. As I said, I was aware of some problems in relation to the way FESA conducted management of the fire and in relation to its relationship with the Department of Environment and Conservation and other agencies—or DEC in this instance. That is what I was referring to. I did not take responsibility for what happened on the day—of course I would not. I was not there. I would not be expected to be there. I should not be there and get in the way of our firefighters. It would be absolutely wrong if I did. That is why I said—and certainly what I meant—I do not take responsibility for what happened with the problems in relation to FESA; it was in relation to what was happening on the day, and I do not resile from those comments. But in day-to-day actions and in day-to-day—if the member likes—communication, it certainly was between the CEO and the board initially, as the board had the responsibility. I have had meetings with the executive of FESA time and time again—of course I have—and that is what I was referring to.
Mr R.F. JOHNSON : No, I am not. Mr E.S. Ripper : You are not telling the truth! Mr R.F. JOHNSON : I am telling the truth. As I said, I was aware of some problems in relation to the way FESA conducted management of the fire and in relation to its relationship with the Department of Environment and Conservation and other agencies—or DEC in this instance. That is what I was referring to. I did not take responsibility for what happened on the day—of course I would not. I was not there. I would not be expected to be there. I should not be there and get in the way of our firefighters. It would be absolutely wrong if I did. That is why I said—and certainly what I meant—I do not take responsibility for what happened with the problems in relation to FESA; it was in relation to what was happening on the day, and I do not resile from those comments. But in day-to-day actions and in day-to-day—if the member likes—communication, it certainly was between the CEO and the board initially, as the board had the responsibility. I have had meetings with the executive of FESA time and time again—of course I have—and that is what I was referring to.
Mr E.S. Ripper : You are not telling the truth! Mr R.F. JOHNSON : I am telling the truth. As I said, I was aware of some problems in relation to the way FESA conducted management of the fire and in relation to its relationship with the Department of Environment and Conservation and other agencies—or DEC in this instance. That is what I was referring to. I did not take responsibility for what happened on the day—of course I would not. I was not there. I would not be expected to be there. I should not be there and get in the way of our firefighters. It would be absolutely wrong if I did. That is why I said—and certainly what I meant—I do not take responsibility for what happened with the problems in relation to FESA; it was in relation to what was happening on the day, and I do not resile from those comments. But in day-to-day actions and in day-to-day—if the member likes—communication, it certainly was between the CEO and the board initially, as the board had the responsibility. I have had meetings with the executive of FESA time and time again—of course I have—and that is what I was referring to.
Mr R.F. JOHNSON : I am telling the truth. As I said, I was aware of some problems in relation to the way FESA conducted management of the fire and in relation to its relationship with the Department of Environment and Conservation and other agencies—or DEC in this instance. That is what I was referring to. I did not take responsibility for what happened on the day—of course I would not. I was not there. I would not be expected to be there. I should not be there and get in the way of our firefighters. It would be absolutely wrong if I did. That is why I said—and certainly what I meant—I do not take responsibility for what happened with the problems in relation to FESA; it was in relation to what was happening on the day, and I do not resile from those comments. But in day-to-day actions and in day-to-day—if the member likes—communication, it certainly was between the CEO and the board initially, as the board had the responsibility. I have had meetings with the executive of FESA time and time again—of course I have—and that is what I was referring to.
Explore WA Government Data
Search the full archive in the free dashboard, or query programmatically via API.
Explore more
Government Gazette
Appointments, regulatory notices, planning changes.
Hansard
Debates, questions, speeches and sentiment.
Tabled Papers
Reports and documents tabled in Parliament.
Committees
Committee profiles and recent reports.
Regulations
Subsidiary legislation with filters and summaries.
Bills
Proposed laws and parliamentary progress.
Acts
Current WA legislation and summaries.
Explanatory Memoranda
Bills with EMs (text/PDF) available.
Members
MP profiles, party breakdown and rankings.
Pollie Rankings
Data-driven rankings across 19 categories.
Amendment Chains
Track how schemes and regulations evolve over time.