Page 47 - Week 01 - Wednesday, 28 February 2007
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
the community. The legal process and the potential for prosecution, which I referred to earlier, no doubt made them annoyingly cautious.
By contrast to the reaction to the McIntyres Hut fire over the border in New South Wales, where it appears similar accusations of inadequate early response were made, we have had a full and relatively frank discussion here in the ACT. There, the coronial inquest made a finding that there was no evidence to suggest that firefighters had not done their best to preserve life and property, a finding in contrast to McLeod’s conclusion that a more aggressive early attack might have put that fire out. I know that this finding is upsetting to those landholders and fire experts who saw what they termed negligence in early efforts to quell the New South Wales fire.
Hindsight is a very powerful lens, and I have no doubt that the officers and politicians alike would have handled matters differently if they had had their time over again. I have asked victims what they believe would have made them feel less bitter about events around that fateful period, and most say that they want to hear a word similar to the one that John Howard has refused to utter: sorry. I have no doubt that people do feel sorry, and that it may be an indictment of our legal system that they do not feel free to utter that word or to admit that mistakes were made.
On the basis of the coroner’s report and on the basis of all that I have seen, read and heard, I cannot support Mr Stefaniak’s motion of no confidence. There are three main reasons for this decision, which has absorbed my mind for the last two months. I have consulted with members of my party, at least one of whom lost his house on Warragamba Drive that day, and I have come to my decision by applying Greens principles and, I think, good common sense. While it is impossible to avoid politics in a matter like this, I have tried to apply logic and compassion to the task.
There will be people who will castigate me for my decision, and there would have been people who would have been offended if I had gone the other way. Politics is like that. First, while the coroner implies that the Chief Minister should resign, citing the Westminster convention and supported by her expert witness Sir Peter Lawler, I believe that if she had wanted this—and it never became a recommendation—she should have mounted a more extensive investigation. Why was Bill Wood, who took leave for one, the worst, day, not seen to bear any responsibility? Why weren’t he and other members of cabinet called? The opposition says it has no confidence in the Chief Minister. That is predictable, but the opposition’s role is political while the coroner’s is judicial. There is not enough in her report to justify this, and it is noteworthy that she does no more than imply it, through the words of Sir Peter Lawler.
Second, the government, and certainly not the Chief Minister, did not set in motion the train of events that led to the terrible day of 18 January. In this way, the situation is very different from earlier motions of no confidence that had, I believe, more cogency. Both the hospital implosion and the Bruce Stadium development, for example, were set in train deliberately by the government and actively promoted by the Chief Minister of the day. While the Stanhope government and its agencies failed to deal effectively with the fires, they did not light them. I suggest that this casts the notion of responsibility and liability in a different light. And, while Ms Carnell certainly did not intend to do harm, she did set in motion the train of events that ultimately caused the damage.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .