Page 55 - Week 01 - Wednesday, 28 February 2007
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
not have mattered if Mr Stanhope had falsely alarmed the community. It is better to be safe than sorry. This was his greatest failure.
We stand here today condemning the role of this Chief Minister and his negligent acts which led to so many failures. My colleagues will talk later about the ongoing failures since 2003—to the point where we now stand. We have seen here a massive failure of governance, leading to destruction and lives lost. That is why Jon Stanhope cannot continue as Chief Minister.
MR CORBELL (Molonglo–Attorney-General, Minister for Police and Emergency Services and Minister for Planning) (2.46): Today I will be standing in support of the Chief Minister to reject this no-confidence motion. The Chief Minister has outlined in detail why the conclusions reached by the coroner are not substantiated by the evidence presented to her inquiry. Those arguments are compelling and need to be given good consideration by members. As the only other member of this place who was present at that cabinet meeting on the Thursday before the fire, I want to put on the record my position in this matter.
I can again indicate, as I have publicly, that at no time did the officials of the Emergency Services Bureau, including the chief fire control officer, the chief executive of the Department of Justice and Community Safety, and the director of the Emergency Services Bureau, say to the cabinet that warning needed to be given to the ACT community. Nor did they say, or in any way indicate, that there was any immediate threat to the urban area of the ACT.
I can recall very clearly asking Mr Castle and Mr Lucas-Smith what would occur if warning was required—in the event that warnings were required, what steps would be taken. They said, and I recall this clearly also, that normal steps would be taken to utilise the police and the State Emergency Service to advise residents should there be any risk to a suburban area. They drew the example of what occurred at Christmas 2001, when residents of Duffy were warned of the prospect of a fire potentially impacting on their neighbourhood.
When the Chief Minister, other ministers and I say that we were not advised or warned that steps needed to be taken, we do so in that context. It distresses me when I read the coroner’s report and see not only that it draws conclusions about a meeting at which neither she nor members opposite were present, but also that the official statements and the sworn evidence of the people who gave evidence about that meeting consistently reject the assertions and allegations, and the conclusions the coroner drew. They are in complete contradiction to the conclusion the coroner has drawn.
The Chief Minister at all times acted appropriately and on the full advice of his officials. When the coroner suggests that the Chief Minister downplayed the significance of the situation on the afternoon of Saturday the 18th, she does so from a position where there is selective quoting from the information provided—from the information that she has available to her. The transcripts of those interviews were read by the Chief Minister in the debate earlier today. They say very clearly that at no time did the Chief Minister downplay the significance or the seriousness of the event that was then overtaking our neighbourhoods. At no time did he suggest that there was
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .