Page 33 - Week 01 - Wednesday, 28 February 2007
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
close of business on 17 January. They continued with those plans after the cabinet briefing. It is inconceivable that those ministers would have acted as they did had the cabinet briefing of 16 January raised in their minds and hearts any reasonable concern that Canberra’s suburbs were at risk. It is inconceivable that either they or I would have sat back complacently and neglected to warn Canberrans of the approaching conflagration.
If, as the coroner claims, a clear warning was conveyed to cabinet on 16 January, why was that warning not contained in the cabinet briefing papers? Why was it not recalled by the ministers and officials present? Why was it not contained in the cabinet minutes, the formal record of the meeting? And what possible reason, what earthly reason could I and my colleagues have had for electing not to warn the city if we had been in possession of the sober warnings that the coroner believes us to have been in possession of? It defies logic, it defies human nature, it defies psychology and it defies sheer humanity to suggest that we were warned and that we simply shrugged and went about our daily lives.
In a statutory declaration made last year, former Deputy Chief Minister, Ted Quinlan, stated that the general impression he took away from that cabinet briefing on 16 January was that there was a relatively serious problem facing the territory, but one that was comparable to the impacts of the fires in December 2001. Mr Quinlan stated:
There was certainly no hint of the devastating firestorm which struck two days later … I was sufficiently confident to undertake a planned visit to Melbourne ...
Mr Bill Wood, the Minister for Police and Emergency Services at the time of the fires, has also recorded his recollections of that cabinet briefing in a statutory declaration. He writes:
I did not entertain the view—nor, I believe, did anyone else—that the fires could intrude into the urban areas; that it could develop so drastically. Had the tone of the briefing been different I would not have sought leave as I did.
The other minister present at the cabinet meeting, the then Minister for Health and now Attorney-General, gave his recollections to the media last December. At no time, he said, had the ACT Emergency Services Bureau suggested that a warning was required or needed. Mr Corbell then stated:
… they said that the fires posed a significant threat to parts of the ACT but there was no immediate threat to the urban area at that time. And that was two days before the firestorm. They went on to say that they believed the day that was of most concern was Monday the 20th of January 2003, not Saturday. And they said, when questioned, that if necessary there would be mechanisms put in place to advise the public, but they did not believe that that was warranted at that time.
These recollections, from three credible, respected and upstanding members of the Canberra community, are entirely consistent with my own recollections. They are consistent also with the evidence given to the coroner by two other respected individuals—the then chief executive of the Department of Justice and Community Safety, Mr Tim Keady, and the then chief executive of the
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .