Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .
Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1999 Week 12 Hansard (24 November) . . Page.. 3588 ..
MR SMYTH (continuing):
full picture because we have looked at the document and we are willing to work ahead with the coroner.
What does the coroner actually say? Mr Quinlan talked about lousy administration, and that is actually in conflict with what the coroner says on the issue of WorkCover. The position was put forward that they were under-resourced. The coroner said, "No, they weren't". But what does he say, Mr Speaker? First and foremost, Mr Quinlan tried to portray that everything had the Chief Minister's fingers in it; that it was all her fault; that she had engineered it right from the top. But what the coroner said was this:
There is no doubt that the Chief Minister was considerably moved by the tragedy of this occasion. She had received advice about the matter. Mrs Carnell was sincere and genuine in her evidence that the tragedy was extremely regrettable ... There is no doubt that the statement set out in this document is one of genuine sorrow. There is also no doubt in my mind that the Chief Minister, personally, regrets that a young girl has lost her life in horrific circumstances.
But what is it that the coroner said Mrs Carnell was entitled to? How did he see her actions? The coroner said at page 482 of his report:
Mrs Carnell, the Chief Minister, was entitled to proceed and accept that the implosion was being competently performed in accordance with what she understood to be the implosion methods mentioned in the August 1995 Cabinet decision and the various RGA reports.
The coroner went on to say specifically in his report:
Mrs Carnell said ... "If it had dawned on us, if we had even thought there was ... one per cent chance of something that was dangerous, that this was dangerous well of course we would not have done it ...".
What did the coroner say about that? He said:
In my view this was a reasonable position to adopt having regard to the processes put in place by the ACT in the selection of the Project Director ... the Project Manager ... the contractor ... and the specialist implosion subcontractor ... There was no event that had ever occurred which could reasonably have put the Chief Minister on notice of any safety concerns on the part of those involved on the demolition side of the project with respect to the planned implosion.
Mr Speaker, it is curious that the Opposition chooses to ignore these things. They will selectively quote from the whole document whereas we will say, "Yes, he has pointed to things that we need to improve. We are working on them and we will continue to work on them".
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .