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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1999 Week 12 Hansard (24 November) . . Page.. 3618 ..

MR BERRY (continuing):

prosecute those who fail. The only people who can hold politicians responsible for the actions are the electors at election time.

With a new Assembly in the ACT, the electors do not directly elect the head of government, the Assembly does. The head of government is responsible to this house. You were put there by politicians, and it is the politicians who will pay for failing to hold you accountable for this assault on the community, Chief Minister. In the case of the failed hospital implosion, it was the Chief Minister who was very clearly responsible. She has admitted herself that she is responsible. Mrs Carnell has said, "The buck stops with me". This is not some meaningless media statement. This means that the Chief Minister is responsible. She has not accepted that the Government screamed blue murder when it was suggested that the Chief Minister stand down at the beginning of the inquiry, but that was the time when the Chief Minister should have accepted responsibility.

The Chief Minister should have stood aside until the coroner reported. The report which indicts the Chief Minister confirms that this approach would have been the most honourable outcome. This has never been about honour; it has always been about escaping the consequences. The coroner has quite a bit to say on this issue, including the section entitled "The public event - an issue of public safety". The decision to hold a public event was made without any regard to safety. The decision to promote the implosion as a public spectacle and to actively invite the public to attend was not necessarily an inappropriate decision.

However, with the potential risk of flying debris associated with the use of explosives in the proximity of the public, then it would have been a prudent course not to actively promote an implosion. If a public event is to be held, then appropriate steps must be taken to ensure that the safety of the public is not compromised. Police, ambulance and other emergency services should be fully consulted, as such a public spectacle will invariably create traffic congestions in addition to the safety considerations.

Whilst safety considerations should be a major concern in any implosion, the fact that this implosion was to occur in the heart of the city should have served to highlight further the need for the implosion to be carried out without exposing persons in the surrounding area to risk. If the issue had been addressed properly at the very outset, then members of the public in the vicinity should not have been exposed to the risk. This failure is a matter of grave concern and would be so whether or not any public event was arranged. But the event was arranged, and it was the personal property of the Chief Minister. The report further states:

A demolition in the form of an implosion as a public spectacle was fraught with risk. An implosion by its very nature would attract a large crowd. The public event was staged as if it was a festive occasion to mark the destruction of a public building which was held in high regard by the Canberra community for the memories that it created. The radio station, MIX 106.3, promoting the event, described the occasion in its proposal to Mr Dawson as a "celebration of change". It was not appropriate, on a global view of the evidence, for

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