Page 2348 - Week 08 - Thursday, 7 June 1990
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MR STEVENSON (6.06): Mr Speaker, the matter that I raised as a matter of public importance is indeed one of public importance. It named Mr Collaery as possibly failing to instigate a correct investigation into this matter in his role as Attorney-General. When the matter was due to be raised, Mr Collaery moved that the Executive business of this house be heard immediately. That would have effectively blocked the matter of public importance. So the matter of public importance, which named Mr Collaery, was moved by Mr Collaery to be not heard today, and that would put it off, no doubt, for some nine weeks.
There was a vote taken on whether or not the matter of public importance would be heard today and, apparently, because two or three of the members opposite voted incorrectly, it was allowed to proceed. Prior to my getting up to talk on the matter of public importance, Mr Collaery stood up in this Assembly this afternoon and said that the matter should not be heard because it was sub judice for two reasons. The first was that there is a quasi-judicial hearing and the second was that Mr Albrighton had issued seven writs against people working in the Belconnen Remand Centre. Neither of those statements is correct. Mr Speaker, let me read a letter from Mr Albrighton with today's date. It states:
I, Barry Albrighton, have not issued writs for defamation as claimed in the Legislative Assembly this afternoon -
I add, by Mr Collaery -
and I have checked with my solicitors who advise me that they have not issued any writs on my behalf.
That was signed by Mr Barry Albrighton today. I spoke to Mr Albrighton's solicitor. She said that she had not issued a writ on Mr Albrighton's behalf. Barry Albrighton had asked his solicitor to write a private and confidential letter, dated 2 February this year, alleging that certain people had made statements that were defamatory. It lists those statements and at the end of the letter it says:
Our client denies the truth of your allegations. We are instructed to request that you apologise to our client within seven days of the date of this letter for the defamatory remarks you have made in the letter of 27 November 1989, and that you write another letter to be sent to all those persons who received the first letter, withdrawing the defamatory remarks you have made about our client. If this apology and retraction is not forthcoming, our client will consider litigation in court. Yours faithfully, Pamela Coward and Associates.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .