Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .
Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1999 Week 12 Hansard (24 November) . . Page.. 3634 ..
MS CARNELL (continuing):
totally undermine any view that these people were somehow, I think Mr Kaine said, an invention of mine?
Mr Stefaniak: One of them even worked with a former Labor Deputy Chief Minister.
MS CARNELL: Thank you. In fact, one of them even worked in a Labor Minister's office. Mr Speaker, what is the next question? Mr Stanhope raised a number of questions. I think he said that the people of Canberra have a right to ask these questions. The fact is that he had never asked these questions until today. Mr Speaker, the debate here is not about questions Mr Stanhope is asking; it is about attempting to sack me. Obviously, they decided that they wanted to sack me before the questions were answered, which I think says it all.
Those opposite have also made comments about using implosion as a form of demolition. Mr Speaker, what did the coroner find? The coroner said:
It was not the use of implosion as the method of demolition that caused Katie Bender's death but rather the use of that method by incompetent and inexperienced persons. Implosion is a cost effective demolition method in the terms of time saved as opposed to using the traditional demolition processes. The evidence justifies a finding by this inquest that implosion, if carried out competently, is at least as safe -
this is the important bit -
if not safer than the traditional methods of demolition.
The decision to go down the path of implosion, contrary to public comments made by members of this place, was not the problem. The decision Cabinet made to go down the path of implosion was not a problem, according to the coroner. In fact, he suggested that it may have been safer than traditional methods of demolition. So much for that claim.
The Labor Party has alleged that I was blatantly reckless about public safety when it came to the so-called public event. Let me quote the coroner again:
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.
Mr Speaker, not my words; the coroner's. "Mrs Carnell, the Chief Minister, was entitled to proceed and accept that the implosion was being competently performed", contrary to the points all of those opposite have made. Here we had the coroner stating quite clearly that I was entitled to proceed and accept that the implosion was being competently performed. So, how can you run a no-confidence motion on the basis of the coroner's report? Remember, this motion is being run on the basis of a report that says in black
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .