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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2003 Week 2 Hansard (5 March) . . Page.. 502 ..

MR SMYTH (continuing):

(c) the coordination and cooperative arrangements with other ACT and interstate, Commonwealth and non-government agencies, including utility providers, for managing such emergencies; and

(d) the adequacy of ESB's equipment, communications' systems, training and resources.

In undertaking its work, the Inquiry Team will consult closely with the Coroner conducting inquests into the deaths caused by the bushfires to avoid any interference with the process of inquiry being directed by her.

The Inquiry is also to advise the Government on the ACT's overall structure for dealing with emergency situations, given the Territory's unique context (geographic, population, financial and administrative), including the operation of the Emergency Management Act. In providing this advice, the Inquiry should make reference to arrangements that exist in other jurisdictions for dealing with emergencies.

The Inquiry Team will report to the Chief Minister by 30 June 2003, in order that relevant recommendations that may result from the Inquiry may be fully implemented prior to the onset of the 2003-04 bushfire season.

In moving this motion, I know that I am beginning to be a little repetitive. The plain fact is that I have to be repetitive in order to pursue what is essentially a simple matter. For reasons that elude me and many in the community, the Chief Minister will not accept that the McLeod inquiry must have some sort of legal protection.

My colleague Mr Stefaniak has tabled legislation to provide some basic protection for witnesses appearing before the inquiry. Since the government is non-committal about this commonsense compromise, I will endeavour to implement what this community really wants-an inquiry established under the Inquiries Act.

Mr Speaker, members will note that I have used the Chief Minister's own terms of reference, so I do not anticipate any argument on that matter. I am still of the belief that the terms of reference I issued are more thorough but again, in the interests of a positive compromise, I have adopted Mr Stanhope's instead.

Members will also note that the inquiry I propose is to be headed by Mr McLeod. I would imagine that there will be no argument there, either. However, by doing it in this way, Mr McLeod would have all the powers and protections of the Inquiries Act. At present, Mr McLeod has no such powers. Indeed, he will have even less power in pursuing his inquiry than he had as ombudsman. In conducting this sort of inquiry as ombudsman, Mr McLeod would have had at least the powers to compel and derive end use indemnities.

Mr Speaker, the reason the issue of protection for witnesses is important is best outlined by an article written in the Canberra Times on 27 February 2003. I will read from the article, which was headed "Fire heroes doubt government immunity promise". It was written by Frank Cassidy, and reads as follows:

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