Peter's Blog

The Canberra Times reported this latest story about the various individuals who are hurt and resentful because they are being held responsible for their decisions during the Canberra fire disaster in 2003.

They can't be serious. Canberra's worst natural disaster did involve the failure to deal with the fire threat. Are they saying that they get credit for good outcomes but should not be faulted when their decisions in operational conditions don't deliver?

I think this is called 'being held accountable'.

I agree that the Coroner should have included the fires in NSW and the appalling handling by NSW Government agencies, i.e. the fire came straight from Brindabella.

But what makes these public servants immune from criticism? I certainly feel that Peter Lucas Smith was a true professional asked unfairly to take responsibility for urban fire and disaster defences, that he had little training for.

There certainly was a flawed decision taken not to alarm ACT residents and then to keep it quiet and this was bad decision making. Yet, the entire battle since the fires has been to avoid answering this question and to undermine the Coroner.

The Coroner is 'supposed' to seek out the causes of people being killed or badly injured and the reasons for property losses.

The story follows:  

Bushfires coroner accused of bias
Victor Violante

Four senior emergency services personnel accused Coroner Maria Doogan yesterday of showing "ostensible bias" and exceeding her jurisdiction in her findings into the January 2003 ACT bushfires, which were highly critical of their actions.
The men are seeking to have adverse comments made about them in Ms Doogan's coronial inquiry quashed in an ACT Supreme Court hearing that began yesterday before Chief Justice Terence Higgins.
Almost a year after the scathing report was handed down, its findings are being taken to task by former Emergency Services Bureau executive director Mike Castle, former chief bushfire control officer Peter Lucas-Smith, current State Emergency Service chief executive Tony Graham and Rick McRae, now head of the Emergency Service Agency's risk management division.
All four were heavily criticised in the report for their actions during the bushfires, including for failing to warn the ACT community in time about the imminent threat fires burning in NSW had posed.
The fires swept through several ACT residential suburbs, claiming more than 400 homes and killing four people.
Counsel for the men James Glissan, QC, told the ACT Supreme Court Ms Doogan had at times exceeded her jurisdiction, while in some aspects she had not gone far enough.
Mr Glissan accused Ms Doogan of informing her report with evidence from unreliable witnesses with vested interests, including in her critical findings of Chief Minister Jon Stanhope.
"It was an inappropriate approach to the jurisdictional duty of her role as coroner," Mr Glissan said.
"Our case is that fundamental errors informed almost everything we've complained about."
The men also claim Ms Doogan "erred by wrongly confining its [the coroners court] jurisdiction to exclude any examination of the cause, origin and circumstances" of the McIntyre's Hut fire, which started in NSW on January 8, 2003, and which was part of the conflagration that hit Canberra 10 days later.
The bushfire inquest spanned more than two years and included an attempt by the ACT Government to disqualify Ms Doogan as coroner, amid claims of bias.
In January 2005, the full court of the Supreme Court rejected this, but made several comments about the role and jurisdiction of coroners in the territory.
Mr Glissan argued yesterday that the coroner had ignored several of the court's recommendations, in particular about her role to attribute blame.
In its decision, the full court had said the legislation "does not provide a general mechanism for an open-ended inquiry into the merits of government policy, the performance of government agencies or private institutions, or the conduct of individuals, even if apparently related in some way to the circumstances in which the death or fire occurred." It is alleged the coroner exceeded these provisions.
Ms Glissan added, "The fundamental, underlying principle is that it's a limited inquiry into the cause and origin of the fire."
Chief Justice Higgins said that except as an ancillary conclusion, it was not a coroner's job to find who was liable.
Mr Glissan opened proceedings by saying he did not want all of the report quashed, only the adverse comments relating to his clients.
The hearing, which is expected to last all week, resumes today.

Comments