Page 56 - Week 01 - Wednesday, 28 February 2007
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
nothing to worry about. What he did seek to do, as any responsible leader would, was acknowledge the problem—acknowledge the scale of the emergency—but also seek to ensure that people did not panic. That is what a responsible leader should do. I join with the Chief Minister in saying that that particular assertion by the coroner is an abhorrent one and is totally unreasonable.
Let us go back to this whole issue of ministerial accountability. In his speech, the Chief Minister talked about the issues around ministerial accountability and what the accepted convention and understanding are. Ministerial accountability means that ministers explain the actions of their departments and provide information on the actions of their departments. Unless ministers themselves are directly involved in causing or, by omission, allowing to be caused an incident which has an impact on the community or an impact in some adverse way, it is completely unreasonable to suggest that the minister should resign.
Are those opposite saying that the actions of every single public servant, whether they are known to the minister or not, should lead to the minister having to resign if something goes wrong? That is exactly what they are saying, Mr Speaker. What I find most disconcerting from the comments of those opposite, particularly Mr Pratt, is this. Mr Pratt seems to believe that ministers should put themselves in the shoes of emergency services officials and second-guess their expertise and their judgment.
No member of the cabinet had knowledge of fire, of managing fire or of issues to do with ameliorating fire. No member of the cabinet had that knowledge at that time. It is not appropriate for a minister to say, “Well, I am going to second-guess my emergency services officials. They are saying to me there is no need for warning. They are saying to me that the situation is being managed—that it is serious but it is being managed—but I do not trust them; I do not believe them; I am going to become the emergency services professional.” It is a bit like saying that the minister for health is going to start becoming the doctor or the minister for education is going to decide the best way to teach our kids.
We employ professionals for a reason. We employ them because they have the expertise and the skills needed to advise government on what should be done to protect our community. At all times—at all times—the government followed the advice of its professional firefighters and its professional emergency managers. That is what a responsible government should do: accept that advice.
I want to relate to members a story of my experience on the morning of 18 January. I want to do this to highlight the absurdity of the claim that the cabinet knew and did nothing. On the morning of 18 January, I returned to my home in Holder at about 11 am, having spent the previous night with my volunteer fire brigade colleagues in the Tidbinbilla Valley area. I returned to my home; I said hello to my children and my partner; and I went to bed, because I had been awake all night. I was woken at about 1 pm by my partner telling me that there was some disturbing news coming over on the radio.
At home I had two young children, both under the age of 5, as well as my partner. How could I, as a father, have taken the decision to be in that situation if I had some prior knowledge that the fire was going to come down on top of my suburb and the
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .