Page 5685 - Week 13 - Thursday, 18 November 2010
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
when there were two full sweeps by officers of Lady Denman Drive, he was not sighted. We are seeking to understand why he remained within a one-kilometre exclusion zone for 40 minutes. I could crawl on my hands and knees the 600 or 700 metres that he travelled in that 40 minutes. There is a question of why a jogger, having been advised that an explosion was to occur, chose to remain within an exclusion zone for 40 minutes. (Time expired.)
MR SPEAKER: Mr Doszpot, a supplementary question?
MR DOSZPOT: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Minister, will the outcome of the investigation be made public?
MR STANHOPE: Yes, the outcome of the investigation will certainly be made public. I have also asked whether or not the powers available to marshals, the department and contractors are sufficient. There is an issue that has been raised as a result of this particular experience, the fact that this person was asked—and I did inquire, “Had the marshal demanded? What powers did he have to demand?” And if the person said, “Well, I’m going to go in anyway,” what powers did the marshal or officials have to restrain this person and do we need powers?
I have asked for advice about that. Do we need a police presence in future? Do we need to ensure that people who are protecting a zone where a dangerous activity is to occur have appropriate powers and authorities? I also expect the review to give me advice on whether or not a person who deliberately ignores a request not to enter a zone that he has been advised is dangerous as a result of explosions, demolition activity, should be subject to charge for deliberately entering and remaining—
MR SESELJA: You’re not prejudging the issue, are you, Jon?
MR STANHOPE: No, I am not. But it seems to me that there are certainly gaps in the powers available to government and authority in relation to those persons that would deliberately ignore a request and then deliberately remain within a zone that they have been advised not to enter.
The department is very mindful, as am I, that this occurrence should not have occurred. Our systems should not have allowed a person to enter. But to be fair to the official or the marshal that requested this person not to enter, the person turned around and walked away. It does raise the question; it is a fact there was a person within an exclusion zone who should not have been there and we need to thoroughly explore and understand how he got into the zone and why he was not detected.
MR COE: A supplementary, Mr Speaker.
MR SPEAKER: Yes, Mr Coe.
MR COE: What warning was the public given prior to the demolition taking place?
MR STANHOPE: I understand, Mr Coe—and I do hope this will be further explored in the report, and I am happy to ensure that it is—that the coroner inquiring into the
fatal implosion at the Royal Canberra Hospital recommended that, in future, where
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video