Page 18 - Week 01 - Wednesday, 28 February 2007
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Much was made during the inquest and afterwards about the benefit of hindsight. It is certainly something this government often speaks about. Here is what counsel assisting had to say about the matter:
If the evidence demonstrates, as we submit that it does, that particular people knew particular things at a relevant time and failed to act on their own knowledge then there is no role for complaining about the wisdom of hindsight, but rather the complaint is that there was a failure to have appropriate foresight.
A coronial inquest is held to establish facts, and in the coroner, Maria Doogan, the coronial process had found a dogged and dedicated seeker after truth in the formidable Australian coronial tradition. The coroner says:
The point to make here is that experiences in life, be they good or bad, serve no useful purpose if we fail to learn from them. It is to be hoped, therefore, that the many lessons that can be learnt from this catastrophe in the ACT are in fact learnt and result in positive action, not just supportive words and shallow promises.
A telling comment indeed.
It is inevitable that, in a thorough coronial inquest such as that conducted by Maria Doogan, individuals will be blamed for taking or not taking certain actions. It is a strength of our system that individuals do need to take responsibility for their actions, and consequences often flow from that. The coroner’s report is damning in relation to a significant number of individuals, including the Chief Minister. As the person ultimately responsible, the Chief Minister should resign. In the simplest terms, the Chief Minister was negligent in his duty. He took advice and acquired knowledge that he should have passed on to the people of Canberra. He failed to do so. In not doing so, he failed the people of Canberra and he failed the test of leadership.
The coroner’s report revealed, amongst other things, a litany of failed opportunities, persons being in positions where they were out of their depth, an inadequate and inappropriate use of resources, inabilities to convey information that should have been conveyed within organisations and between organisations and the public, and failure to heed the advice of experts such as Phil Cheney and experienced people on the ground such as Val Jeffrey, the man who saved Tharwa.
The opposition will argue from the evidence to the Doogan inquiry and other inquiries that the Labor government’s policy of locking up and leaving the environment contributed to the disaster by allowing high fuel loads to provide ammunition for the fires to burn more fiercely, by resisting backburning and bulldozing that would have saved the fauna and flora in the national parks from the firestorm when it came, and by obstructing access ways for firefighting vehicles.
The opposition will argue that there have been a number of predictions of just such a firestorm entering Canberra itself, including in the days leading up to 18 January 2003. The opposition will, on the basis of the evidence, show that the ACT under this government, the Stanhope government, was shockingly unprepared for
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .