Page 67 - Week 01 - Wednesday, 28 February 2007
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Here we have a Chief Minister, in the lead-up to the firestorm, returning from leave, taking briefings on the status of the fire and flying over the fires to get a good picture of the situation on the ground. At considerable personal risk, he and others save a man’s life. He then calls an unscheduled cabinet meeting to discuss the fire situation and get a detailed briefing on it.
After all of this, the opposition want us to believe that the Chief Minister and his entire cabinet simply ignored supposed advice about the size, speed and likely devastation of the fires and did nothing. Under the opposition’s scenario, not only does the Chief Minister ignore this urgent warning and do nothing, but three other ministers do nothing as well. At the end of that meeting, two ministers go on leave. I was on leave at the time. One minister goes to fight the fires. But no-one—not one of them—tells anyone of the alleged dire warning that was meant to have been given at that meeting. It is simply unbelievable. It is incongruent with the facts—the evidence given before the coroner—and it defies commonsense and human decency. Cabinet was not warned, and perhaps that is the real issue here. Maybe cabinet should have been warned at this meeting, and with the benefit of hindsight that is clearly the case.
What purpose would be served by this government, in a most serious conspiracy against its citizens and its community, not warning the community in the event that cabinet itself had been warned? It defies logic and commonsense. It would constitute behaviour comply abhorrent to this Chief Minister and this government. The claim is completely unsupported by evidence.
In relation to the allegation that the Chief Minister at best failed to understand or at worse deliberately downplayed the seriousness of the calling of a state of emergency, one only needs to listen to the full interview broadcast on 666 or 2CC. Throughout that interview it is clear that the Chief Minister was answering questions about the current situation with the seriousness it deserved.
At the time of the broadcast the Chief Minister was aware that some houses in Duffy were already on fire and that there were concerns for houses in Giralang and Chapman. In addition, several other suburbs were flagged by him as potentially at risk. The words “emergency” and “grave” were used, along with the sentence “There can’t be a graver situation facing a community than this …”.
The Chief Minister is criticised for downplaying the event by using the term “administrative matter” in an earlier broadcast. The Chief Minister made the reference to an administrative matter to explain the process of what was occurring. It was an administrative matter. Documents need to be signed by the relevant minister, relinquishing powers from ministerial control to the relevant official. Mr Stanhope is to be criticised for explaining this?
If one takes the time to review press conferences after the declaration of a state of emergency in any jurisdiction, they will see that, while explaining the current or developing situation, all heads of government always urge the community to stay calm. What is the alternative? To say nothing? To leave it up to people to make up their own minds? To urge panic but in a controlled way?
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .