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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 02 Hansard (Thursday, 4 March 2004) . . Page.. 745 ..

applying, that there was a 40 to 60 per cent chance that a state of emergency would have to be declared?

MR STANHOPE: I am asserting that, Mr Speaker.

MRS DUNNE: Mr Speaker, I ask a supplementary question. So you are asserting, Chief Minister, that after the briefing on 16 January you did not come to the conclusion that you might have to declare a state of emergency in any other circumstance?

MR SPEAKER: I think he has answered that.

MRS DUNNE: No, he has not answered that.

MR STANHOPE: I do not think I can answer it. I am not quite sure what it means. I have given an outline of the briefing that the cabinet received in relation to a number of issues. Those issues were noted.

Let me just say: there was no suggestion at the briefing on the Thursday morning by the Emergency Services Bureau—there was no suggestion or recommendation or even assertion—that it was inevitable that a state of emergency would need to be sought. I have explained that my understanding of the briefing and the discussion around a state of emergency at the briefing on the Thursday related to a discussion that had ensued about the implications of the fire impacting on electricity infrastructure; the implications of the possibility of arcing being a result of particles in the air; and the potential, as a result of the fact—as I understand it, as we were advised at that time; something else that I did not know until that week—that 80 per cent of the electricity supplied to the ACT is supplied through a single substation, and that is the Macgregor substation.

There was a real concern that if that substation were impacted in that way, 80 per cent of the power supplied to the ACT would fail. One can imagine in that circumstance that there would be some very serious consequences. One would need, of course, to think about how this might best be handled, and one way of handling that circumstance would be through the declaration of a state of emergency. As I have said, that is to my memory what ensued. Let me also say, however, that it may be that others do not have that same memory. But that is my memory.

I have indicated on a number of occasions, Mr Speaker, that I have been called to give evidence next Monday. I have not read the submissions or statements of any other witness. I have not read any of the transcripts. My approach and attitude to this is that it is vitally important that all the evidence of all witnesses be placed before the coroner and the coroner present her report on the basis of all the evidence.

I do not know what other witnesses are saying. All I know is what I can recall. I have said—and I am saying honestly—that my recollection of the cabinet meeting is that there was a broad discussion around the effect or implications of the fire impacting on electricity infrastructure, namely the potential for arcing to occur and the impact of that on the Macgregor substation, and the implications of the Macgregor substation failing on the electricity supply to the whole of Canberra. And, of course, in the context of that, it would be obvious to ask, “Well, what would we do then?” and there was then a discussion around the mechanics for the declaration of a state of emergency.

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