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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 05 Hansard (Thursday, 13 May 2004) . . Page.. 1785 ..

That is the truth of it, Mr Speaker. I am not a liar. Regrettably, my memory failed me in this instance and I made statements to the Assembly and in public that I did not qualify, and which were wrong. As I have said, that is a matter of enormous personal regret to me, and I have apologised to this place, and to the people of Canberra, for my mistake. But there is no cover-up.

There is no hidden agenda. There is no conspiracy. There is no drama for the opposition to seize upon, except that which it creates itself, or that is created by misguided or mischievous commentators. There are telephone calls, made in the midst of a tense and extended period of some considerable trauma, and I have no memory of them. The truth of it, Mr Speaker, is that the opposition has not made and cannot make out any case to support a want of confidence in me as Chief Minister in relation to this matter.

MR CORNWELL (11.47): When the firestorm struck Canberra on 18 January, I was flying into London Gatwick. At 5 o’clock, London time, I saw on television Jemalong Street—which I recognised as Duffy—ablaze. It would have been 3 am Sunday morning Canberra time. If, even being half a world away, I can remember such an event, why can someone on the spot and directly involved in the matter, not recall, until 18 months later, and only following a prompting, a crucial telephone call. This is the fundamental question that has led to this motion of no confidence in the Chief Minister for misleading the Assembly.

Mr Smyth has outlined the sequence of events about which we have been misled. Let me briefly repeat it. Mr Stanhope, like every other person in this city, was completely aware that we were threatened with major bushfires. As Chief Minister, he had a duty to be far better informed than the average person. The Chief Minister was amongst the ministers formally briefed on Thursday the 16th in an unprecedented cabinet meeting. He knew that the responsibilities of his office and the Minister for Emergency Services were very serious. He knew that he, as Chief Minister, needed to be constantly by his telephone in case the authorities needed to initiate the state of emergency—a decision only he could make.

On the Friday the authorities were clearly becoming alarmed by the deterioration in their defences. The evidence coming through the coronial hearings tells us that the debate was turning into ‘when’ not ‘whether’ the fires would reach the city. On that day Mr Stanhope himself assumed responsibility for emergency services. Yet, incredibly, he tells us that, from the cabinet meeting on Thursday until the middle of Saturday, he made no contact with the emergency authorities—although I have been informed that Mr Stanhope and at least one officer were seen on Red Hill on Friday evening.

Amazingly, a call at 7 pm on Friday night is said to have gone unanswered. The message that was left received no reply from the Minister and Chief Minister, who should of course have been in charge. What on earth were the authorities to have done? Surely they called the minister at his home. Surely they tried to contact him through his senior staff. One has to ask: what other secrets remain to emerge about communication with the minister in that day?

Whatever the truth, we know for certain that this Assembly has been misled. For over a year Mr Stanhope has misled us and the public. The truth has come to light only because

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