Page 43 - Week 01 - Wednesday, 28 February 2007
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
As we all know, not everyone has been able to move forward, despite their best intentions at that time. In fact, some of those officials yesterday mounted an action against the comments made about them by the coroner. And, as we know, there are people affected by the fire who have given the impression that they will not be happy until retribution or compensation is exacted. Some want Mr Stanhope to resign; some just want an acknowledgment from the government of the day that mistakes were made and responsibility is accepted. The legal situation, unfortunately, makes that unlikely.
Catherine Dunlop, a lawyer who specialises in legal issues related to emergencies and emergency services, comments that Australian coroners have broad powers to investigate and hold inquests into deaths and that the role of emergency services personnel at inquests has traditionally been to assist the coroner in finding out how a disaster unfolded, why people died and in making recommendations for the future. She says:
Whilst it may seem unlikely to an ESO that their personnel could be criminally liable, it is important that they understand the potential for action against them if they are required as a witness.
From the evidence that they gave at the coronial inquest, it was clear that the officers were entirely aware of the potential for subsequent legal action.
Today we are debating the opposition’s no-confidence motion, which has been precipitated by the coroner’s report handed down in December. I want to look in some detail at that report since it is the basis on which today’s motion was put. As we know, this was not an uncontroversial inquiry. Maria Doogan clearly resented the delay caused by the legal challenge mounted by a small number of ACT government employees and backed by the government. I am not sure that her annoyance does not colour her response. Certainly, her remarks indicate it does.
The coroner’s job is an important one: to find out how a disaster unfolded, why people died and to make recommendations for the future. Coroner Doogan felt that she could not do this without finding fault on the part of individuals. While she remarked that a coronial inquest or inquiry is not an adversarial hearing, I could not help thinking as I read her report that this one was. But I do not lay the blame for this entirely at her feet.
My other significant concern was the list of witnesses called by the coroner and the experts that she chose to help her draft her report. I wonder, for instance, why she did not call Bill Wood, who was the responsible minister on all but the most horrific day of the fires. Indeed, he was the minister for police and emergency services during the period when, theoretically at least, it might have been possible to bring the fires under control. Nor were any members of cabinet, apart from the Chief Minister, called to give evidence. I wonder also why she limited her small group of scientific advisers to a fire physicist and someone whose expertise was the behaviour of fires in terms of spotting behaviour. If there were others I have missed, my apologies.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .