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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 05 Hansard (Thursday, 13 May 2004) . . Page.. 1796 ..

The glaring fact is that it was a “most extreme contingency”, and the way to confront a most extreme contingency is to invoke “a dramatic response”. Avoiding taking a decision in such circumstances is a feeble clutching at straws. What were they afraid of? Were they afraid of being wrong? Maybe. And people who are afraid of being wrong are invariably unsuited to hold responsibility where hard decisions might be required.

It is my conclusion that, in the handling of that great tragedy last year—that truly “most extreme contingency” in which four lives snuffed out and over 500 homes were destroyed—poor leadership was a very significant contributing factor. Those who were leading at the time showed by their detached and even timid approach to the task before them that the people cannot confidently rely on them to provide the sort of leadership needed in such circumstances. This conclusion is influenced by no consideration other than my review of the facts. It has taken no account of the opinions of any other persons. And it is not based on personal feelings; in fact, I do not think the Chief Minister is a “bad” person, as such.

The circumstances of this tragedy bring to mind what Mr Stanhope said in this place in 1999 in relation to the Katie Bender matter. He asked the rhetorical question “How far into the operations of departments and agencies under his or her direction does a minister’s responsibility extend?” And he answered it himself by saying that “ministerial accountability is absolute”. Listen to the echoing ring of that comment, Mr Speaker: “ministerial accountability is absolute”.

On that same occasion, Mr Stanhope also said, “The fact that so many Canberrans were put at risk represented, in the coroner’s words, a total abrogation by the government of its responsibility to ensure the safety of its citizens”. The Chief Minister needs to recognise that what is good for the goose is good for the gander. Accountability is not a moveable feast. As he himself said back then, accountability is absolute. (Extension of time granted.)

One final matter, Mr Speaker. I would like at this point to quote part of the lengthy conversation of a constituent who called my office a week ago with the firm intention of persuading me not to support this motion. This caller spoke well of the Chief Minister and subscribed to the post-rescue trauma theory. The caller spoke of hatred of the ACT Liberal Party for what they had done to me and said that I should do nothing that might help them regain power. The caller also raised the matter of the Liberals’ own transgressions when in government.

Chat continued for some time about the December 2001 fires and the January 2003 fires in general. The caller spoke somewhat critically of the handling of the January 2003 fires but did not blame Mr Stanhope. On the evening of Friday 17 January the caller and some friends went up to the Red Hill lookout to look at the scope of the fire, because they were worried by developments. What now follows is an accurate rendering of part of that conversation:

On January 17 we were up on Red Hill lookout, around 8.30 pm, very concerned about the fires. There were other people there and we talked to them about the fires. The atmosphere was very tense as we looked out at the 180 degrees arc of fires burning out to the west, and watched the McIntyre’s Hut fire licking around the

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