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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2003 Week 8 Hansard (21 August) . . Page.. 3024 ..

MR STANHOPE (continuing):

of that piece of legislation-whether the arrangements we have for the declaration of a state of emergency are appropriate and whether they fulfil our requirements.

Mr McLeod, in his report, suggests a significant serious downside. He makes two points, essentially, in relation to the declaration of a state of emergency. In the first place, in an environment in which the level of warnings may not have been what we would have hoped for, the declaration of a state of emergency had the effect very dramatically at that late hour of concentrating people's attention and minds on the gravity of the situation.

But he weighed against that, and Mr McLeod points to this in his report. I would ask members to read it. He points to the declaration of a state of emergency then perhaps involving the police in terms of their view of the appropriate message or response to give to the emergency, and they entertained or actually pursued a policy of calling for evacuations in circumstances where they upset people. I think everybody has had these conversations or discussions with affected residents. Many of them complained after the event and continue to complain that much of the confusion and frustration that they faced and suffered was on this question of whether to stay or evacuate.

The messages that had been broadcast up to that time by the Emergency Services Bureau were the standard Australian firefighting authority protocol that if you believe you have the wherewithal, that you have taken appropriate precautions, if you have confidence in your fitness and your ability, if you have taken all the steps and you know you have the strength, you know that you can face the disaster, you can face the fire, then stay and protect your property. That message was being broadcast.

The attitude adopted by many police was "evacuate at all costs". We have all had representations from residents of Weston Creek and Chapman saying that they were seriously upset at the directions-

Mr Smyth: At the directions of the fire authorities.

MR STANHOPE: No, at the directions they were given by police to evacuate, no matter what.

Mr Smyth: The police were told by the fire authorities to evacuate them.

MR STANHOPE: No, they were not. You are not right there. The difficulty with this ongoing debate is that Mr Smyth thinks that the police were directed by the fire authorities to direct evacuations. They were not, because at that stage Mr Murray was the Territory Controller.

Mr Smyth: On the ground and in the suburbs.

MR STANHOPE: A part of the problem we have is these impressions, interpretations or myths that do not go to the facts. That was the situation being faced at the time. But the point I was making is that Mr McLeod makes, I think, an interesting observation in relation to this matter that there was a downside to the declaration of a state of emergency, that perhaps it created confusion rather than resolving it. It is a real issue for us that, in the circumstances, the declaration of a state of emergency to some extent created some confusion.

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