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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2003 Week 8 Hansard (20 August) . . Page.. 2954 ..

MR STEFANIAK (continuing):

When you look at exactly what Mr Smyth is doing you will see that he is hardly censuring the government on the basis that it is all the government's fault. I do not think that Mr Smyth or anyone else on this side of the chamber has ever said that it is all the government's fault. This motion is a very specific censure motion. It is a limited censure motion in relation to specific points. I think that the motion is well worth supporting because it is limited, it goes to the point. The motion is not saying, "It's all your fault."It is not being totally political about the whole thing and saying, "Nothing you people can do is right."It is very specific indeed.

I think that this is the first censure motion that this opposition has brought forward in over 18 months. There were lots of censure motions in previous assemblies. In one particular year, Tony De Domenico was censured about 10 times. Every minister in the previous government was the subject of a censure motion at least once, and often the motions were successful. Sometimes, apart from just playing politics, there probably was good reason for it. Indeed, when there was a Labor government previously, ministers were censured. I think that it is appropriate for the Assembly to use this means of saying, "There are things you can do better. There are things for which, because you are the government and you are ultimately responsible, you deserve to be censured."

Mr Smyth makes three points in this regard. The first is about failing to heed warnings that additional bushfire education was needed in the lead-up to the 2002-03 bushfire season. Mr McLeod seems to indicate on page 175 that that was needed. I saw various ministers hold up something from the Canberra Times. I remember reading that. I actually found it reasonably helpful. But at the end of the day there were other things, especially after the wake-up call in December 2001, that could have been done to further educate the population in relation to bushfires.

We have had some calls from people saying, "All we wanted was just some warning. If we were told, we could have got our photos out and moved family members out."I have heard it said in various debates on this subject to date that in December 2001 people in certain suburbs were warned and took certain steps. Thankfully, that year no houses were lost, no persons were hurt. Still, considerable damage was done, and it was a wake-up call.

It probably would have been unreasonable for us to bring forward this limited censure motion had it not been for what occurred in December 2001. If a government is totally unaware of the possibility of something happening and it happens, it is probably unfair to blame the government for that event; but it should fix up things for next time, do something as a result of that, heed those warnings, heed the warnings of its experts. For example, emergency services might have been telling the government to do things which it did not do.

There is far less of an excuse if you are aware and you do not do anything or you do not do as much as you should. There is a certain degree of culpability then in terms of a government not doing everything it is expected to do. In terms of the ministerial responsibility that is expected to be accepted there, such failure is worthy of censure. I get back again to the fact that Mr Smyth has raised very specific items: failure to implement recommendation 95 of the recommendations of the debrief of the 2001 Stromlo fire and telling the Assembly its bushfire education programs were

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