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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1999 Week 12 Hansard (24 November) . . Page.. 3635 ..

MS CARNELL (continuing):

and white that I was entitled to proceed and accept that the implosion was being competently performed.

Mr Speaker, the coroner goes on at that stage to say:

Mrs Carnell said in her record of interview:-"If it had dawned on us, if we had even thought that there was a minute one per cent chance of something that was dangerous, that this was dangerous ...

You have to look at my really interesting use of words here; but, basically, I said that if we had thought that there was even a minute chance, even a one per cent chance, of anything dangerous happening, then we simply would not have gone ahead. The coroner goes on to say:

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 (Totalcare), the Project Manager (Project Coordination), the contractor (Mr Tony Fenwick) and the specialist implosion subcontractor (Mr Rod McCracken of Controlled Blasting Services). There was no event -

Mr Speaker, this is important -

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, that is perhaps the most critical statement of this entire debate, so let me repeat the coroner's words. Mr Stanhope said that he wanted to run this debate on what the coroner had said. That is what Mr Stanhope said in his speech.

Mr Stanhope: Did I? Did I say that?

MS CARNELL: Yes, you did. The coroner said:

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.

Here we have the coroner directly contradicting the whole basis of Labor's argument, a direct contradiction. Whom are we to believe on this point? Is it Mr Stanhope, Labor, Mr Kaine or the coroner, the person who spent two years, has looked at all of the information, has no axe to grind, and is actually trained to look at evidence?

Did the Government know that anything was wrong? If we had known that there was any danger at all, obviously we would have done something about it. If we had known

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