Page 82 - Week 01 - Wednesday, 28 February 2007
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
“anyone in charge of that fire would have failed” and that “rubbishy arguments about politics” should be ignored.
Mr Speaker, the coroner has delivered her findings and her recommendations. In one part of her report, she makes a very serious charge, saying that the cabinet knew a disaster was about to occur. That is an absurd charge, not supported by any evidence whatever. If a clear warning had been conveyed to cabinet on 16 January, why was that warning not contained in the cabinet briefing papers? Why was it not recalled by the ministers and officials present? Why would ministers go on leave if they had that information? What possible reason could there be for ignoring such advice if it had been given?
Despite making the charge I have outlined, nowhere in chapter 10, the chapter headed “Findings and recommendations”, does the coroner say that the Chief Minister is in any way culpable or responsible for the fires. Her summary in relation to warnings that could have been issued takes no notice of the briefings given daily, sometimes twice a day, to the media and the subsequent media reports. Even though she says the matter of warnings was one for the senior officers of emergency services, those opposite want to lay the blame on the Chief Minister.
The Chief Minister said in evidence before the coroner that his officials did not say anything to alarm him about the state of the fires. That evidence was not contested or questioned. In fact, his cabinet colleagues of that time support his view. Nowhere in the record of cabinet proceedings laid before the coroner is there anything that says that the officials told cabinet of an impending disaster.
I must say, Mr Speaker, that this government simply handed over all records to the coroner, unlike former governments that held back documents that might have helped in previous coronial inquiries. Further, upon his retirement, Mr Phil Koperberg stated that one of the few regrets he had was in allowing the McIntyres Hut fire to escape him and burn down Canberra. I repeat: Mr Koperberg accepts that it was his fire that caused the damage and it is one of the few regrets he has from a lifetime of firefighting that that occurred. In fact, the coroner glosses over much of the McIntyres Hut fire contribution to the disaster and says that it was not within her jurisdiction. It seems odd that New South Wales coroners can have jurisdiction over a death in another country, yet our coroner cannot have any jurisdiction over an event that commenced in New South Wales and finished in the ACT.
In particular, I refer members to page 91 of volume 11 of the report. There the coroner refers to reports at about 2.00 pm on 18 January “of problems with the McIntyres Hut fire burn-out block, where aerial ignition of an unburnt patch was causing vigorous burning”. That indicates to me that some genius from New South Wales was dropping aerial incendiaries on Saturday, 18 January 2003 to commence burnouts, yet the coroner hardly mentions it. It is not within her jurisdiction, she says. What if the McIntyres Hut breakout was not caused by spotting but by aerial incendiaries dropped in the wrong place? Is that still outside her jurisdiction and still the Chief Minister’s fault?
If one examines the images or maps the coroner has printed at pages B.4 to B.8 and at page B.16 of volume I, it is quite clear that the McIntyres Hut fire is the one that hit
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .