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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1999 Week 12 Hansard (24 November) . . Page.. 3594 ..

MS TUCKER (continuing):

Having applied this test of ministerial responsibility to the coroner's report, I believe that the Chief Minister directly failed in her ministerial responsibility in four main areas. The first was the promotion of the implosion as a public spectacle without adequate concerns for public safety. This promotion was orchestrated by the Chief Minister's own media adviser, Gary Dawson, with her approval. This was despite the fact that Mr Dawson and other people involved in the promotion had no idea of the technical risks involved, and despite the fact that the demolition contractor had no real say or even early knowledge that the implosion would be promoted in this way.

Secondly, there was the undue influence that staff of the Chief Minister's office and senior executives of the Chief Minister's Department had over the management of the project. This went right back to the letting of the tenders and continued right up to the implosion, with the attempt to hinder the work of the WorkCover inspectors. The coroner noted that Mrs Carnell knew that Gary Dawson had knowledge of the tender prices which he was not supposed to have yet took no action about it. Moiya Ford's attempt to stop the WorkCover inspectors from holding up the implosion was also clearly exposed, and the role of Mrs Carnell's then chief executive, John Walker, in directing this intervention remains unclear.

Thirdly, there was Mrs Carnell's denial during the inquest that the Chief Minister's Department was the client for the hospital implosion project and her attempt to shift ministerial responsibility for the project to Mr Kaine. In the inquest it was only Mrs Carnell, Mr Walker and Mr Wearing who disputed the overwhelming evidence that the Chief Minister's Department was the client for the demolition project. Surely people in such senior positions would have known the correct situation. The only conclusion that can be reached was that they were either incredibly incompetent or it was a desperate and unwise attempt to shift blame and responsibility.

Fourthly, there was the Chief Minister's disregard for the legitimate safety concerns raised by the Health Services Union of Australia and the misleading response given to the union. Mrs Carnell signed a letter that she knew was written by persons who had no experience in implosion and had no ability to assess the risks involved. The letter also suggested that a risk assessment had been done regarding the implosion, which was false. The arrogance of the Chief Minister and her advisers to belittle the legitimate safety concerns from people who were going to be directly affected by the implosion was astounding.

The coroner also raised a whole string of problems with the implosion right from when the project managers were appointed for the job. A significant number of these problems stemmed from the lack of supervision of the demolition contractors by Project Coordination and the fact that the demolition code of practice was not adhered to. As a consequence, Project Coordination's supervisor, Mr Dwyer, may be subject to charges for breaches of the OH&S Act. I accept that Mrs Carnell cannot be held responsible for negligent actions of employees of Project Coordination. However, the coroner points out:

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