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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2003 Week 2 Hansard (5 March) . . Page.. 521 ..

MS TUCKER (continuing):

on how we need to manage emergency situations, disasters or whatever you want to call them. That is the important point of having this inquiry. If it is not going to be possible, do not have the inquiry. Have just the coronial process.

It is pretty obvious that this motion is not going to get up. Mrs Cross has said she will not support it. That is what I understood her to say, so it seems to me that we will be debating Mr Stefaniak's bill, which deals with some of the issues but not all of them.

There is a power under the Inquiries Act that would be given to Mr McLeod but would not be covered by Mr Stefaniak's bill. That is power to call for papers and so on. From what people have said, we will probably finish up with Mr Stefaniak's bill.

The terms of reference for this inquiry are the government's terms of reference, so I see some compromise by the Liberals on this question. I am pleased to see that, because I had some concerns about a couple of the points in Mr Smyth's terms of reference.

MR PRATT (12.01): Mr Speaker, I rise to support Mr Smyth's motion. As I said in this place on 30 January and in three press releases after 20 January, after any major disaster it is axiomatic that a community carry out a broad and deep inquiry. Politics is the least of our concerns. All political parties in the ACT would clearly share in the criticisms coming out of any effective inquiry going back over many years, which is what this inquiry should do. This is not a matter of politics. It is a matter of all of us here working together to make sure that we get to the bottom of this problem, for the good of the safety of this community.

All the lessons must be learnt. They must all be pulled up. Then those lessons must be applied so that future risk to the ACT community, its firefighters and its emergency services personnel can be minimised. We will never eradicate risk, but at least we can try to minimise it. This is the overriding concern driving this side of the house in seeking a full judicial inquiry.

Any ACT resident or official must be encouraged to come forward without any fear. The concerns raised about defamatory statements and slander are good points to be raised, but I think this is overdone. If witnesses are given protection, any fear that there may be slander is surely far outweighed by the essential need to gather all the vital information that must be pulled out of this disaster.

It is simply not good enough that five weeks have elapsed since the fire disaster without a solid determination to establish a judicial inquiry. Precious time has elapsed. Memories are becoming a little bit faded, perhaps. There is also the time line. The next bushfire season is not that far away, if we are going to learn the lessons and apply them.

Mr Corbell says that our concern on this side of the house is only about the protection of witnesses. That is only half the matter. The opposition is also concerned to ensure that the inquiry has depth and teeth. That is what is driving the motion that Mr Smyth has put forward here today.

Mrs Cross's glib attacks on the opposition here this morning about why we recommend a full judicial inquiry are unwarranted and illogical. In fact, her attacks are pathetic. The opposition has a duty to ensure that this community recovers from a major disaster and

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