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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1999 Week 12 Hansard (24 November) . . Page.. 3630 ..

MS CARNELL (continuing):

prevented the tragedy. In other words, Mr Speaker, if any of us on this side of the house was presented with the same facts again, exactly the same decisions would have been taken. It is interesting that that is what the coroner says as well.

Whilst acknowledging that mistakes were made, I will be urging members not to support this no-confidence motion because the mistakes that contributed to Katie Bender's death, as the coroner has clearly shown, were not made by me or my department or, for that matter, any other department. It is interesting that Mr Stanhope actually acknowledged that up front in his speech. He made it clear that he did not believe that I had contributed to or was directly involved in the death of Katie Bender.

Mr Moore: He deserves credit for that.

MS CARNELL: I agree with Mr Moore. I give Mr Stanhope credit for that. He did go on to suggest that the issue here was ministerial responsibility. I would have to say that a number of his colleagues chose to take a very different line.

The coroner has brought down a report that does contain some disturbing elements and some issues of great concern. What is the proper way to respond to such a report, Mr Speaker? We have had others since self-government. We have talked today about Quamby and the remand centre, other issues of great concern. What is the appropriate way to address such reports? Is it simply to score political points, to seize upon every single negative phrase and quote it out of context so that you convey a picture that is misleading in the extreme? No, Mr Speaker, that is bad government. This side of the chamber chooses to reflect carefully upon what is contained in the report and take decisive action to fix the problems identified. That is ministerial responsibility. That is what it is. When you know you have a problem, act immediately to fix that problem.

The coroner makes it quite clear that neither I nor any of the other Ministers involved had any knowledge whatsoever or any information that could have led us to believe that there was any danger at all.

Mr Hargreaves: What about the HSUA letter?

MR SPEAKER: Just a moment, please.

MS CARNELL: If Mr Hargreaves does not agree with the coroner, that is his problem. The coroner has made it clear - he said it categorically - that he has found that there was no information or knowledge that was in front of me or any other Minister to alert us to any risk of danger to any of the people that were attending the implosion.

Mr Hargreaves: That is blatantly untrue.

MR SPEAKER: Order, please! I do not want any further interjections.

Mr Moore: It is time they were warned.

Mr Hargreaves: Do be quiet, Michael.

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