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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1999 Week 12 Hansard (24 November) . . Page.. 3557 ..

MR STANHOPE (continuing):

especially when using the implosion method. You do not need to be an expert to realise that explosives are dangerous.

What more damning indictment of a government can there be than for it simply to walk away from its fundamental obligation to ensure the safety of its citizens? What more reckless abdication of responsibility could there be than to encourage citizens to attend an inherently dangerous event, compounded by the failure to undertake anything remotely resembling a risk assessment? I can think of none.

Having acted to encourage people to come to a spectacle that ended in tragedy, what remedy should apply? I can think of only one - that the official principally responsible concede the responsibility she bears and accept that she can no longer command the confidence of the community she purports to represent. It is sobering to reflect on the evidence of Dr Krstic, a defence scientist, to the inquest. He told the corner:

Mr Speaker, in great part this debate revolves around the notion of ministerial responsibility. How is a Minister held to account for the responsibilities imposed by his or her duties? How far into the operations of the departments and agencies under his or her administrative direction does a Minister's responsibility extend? These questions have been argued in diverse forums outside this place over many years and some reference to those arguments is apposite to this debate.

The Chief Minister herself has submitted an opinion on the notion of ministerial responsibility. Just over five years ago, in evidence to the VITAB board of inquiry, the Chief Minister argued that ministerial accountability is absolute - ministerial accountability is absolute. That was said in sworn evidence. Pressed by the chair of the inquiry, Professor Dennis Pearce, about whether there were differences between government departments and statutory authorities, the Chief Minister said:

At the end of the day the Minister is responsible. Where the implosion of the old Canberra Hospital is concerned, of course, Totalcare is a statutory authority, though it was not for the entire time of the dealings that we are concerned with today. The Chief Minister's Department is a department of state. The Chief Minister's office is another matter. But, in terms of the extent of ministerial responsibility, if responsibility for the actions of a statutory authority is at one end of the spectrum, surely responsibility for the actions of the Minister's personal staff is at the closer end of the spectrum, the very sharp end. Her office is entirely her direct and personal responsibility.

The Chief Minister's view was reinforced shortly after she took government in 1995. In April of that year the Chief Minister released a "tough new code of conduct for

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