Page 102 - Week 01 - Wednesday, 28 February 2007
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Contrast that with something like Bruce Stadium, when those opposite wanted Kate Carnell’s head. There might have been some process problems there, but at the end of the day that was building something—a great stadium that people enjoy and which continues to grow in value. But, no, the then opposition could not see the wood for the trees. They were after blood, and they got it. She knew as Chief Minister she was ultimately responsible. She took the blame; she went—passing Jon Stanhope’s test of leadership.
In the case of this firestorm, though, there is no wood, there are no trees; they are all gone. The case is as clear as Stromlo forest now is. The Chief Minister should resign, and not to do so makes him a failure against his own test of leadership. The Chief Minister says it was not his fault. He says that he was acting on the best advice he had and that people were doing their best. That was addressed by the coroner, who quoted the opinion of Sir Peter Lawler, who wrote:
In my opinion, simply to wave the issue away by saying that those involved did their best and, without proper analysis of the failure, rush to set up a new emergency services agency risks perpetuating failure.
(Extension of time granted.)
Sir Peter continued:
If responsible officers in the relevant departments and agencies of the ACT Government did their best, then in this case their level of competence proved unequal to the demands of their office ... Their integrity and honesty are not necessarily in question.
Responsibility might properly fall on those who appointed them or those within administration or governance responsible for their supervision, direction and support.
He went on to say:
During the January 2003 bushfires, residents living on the suburban fringe of Canberra had a right to expect, and to rely on, a process by which they would be warned of an impending risk from bushfires. The ACT Government and its authorities had a public duty of good governance to provide it. They failed to do so. In the event four lives were lost. Serious injuries and trauma occurred. There were large property and financial losses both for citizens and the public purse. In my opinion, the omission involved a gross failure in a public duty of care by the ACT Government through its responsible Ministers and authorities.
Mr Speaker, as representatives of the community, we have a responsibility and a duty to share knowledge, to share information with the community. But not so, it seems, with this government and Chief Minister. For reasons today still beyond me, he chose not to share that information. On 18 January and the days before it, the Chief Minister and the government—and he is the one ultimately responsible—failed to share knowledge.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .