Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1998 Week 5 Hansard (25 August) . . Page.. 1302 ..

Mr Corbell: Mr Speaker, I am sorry to interrupt my colleague, but the Chief Minister is wilfully ignoring your ruling.

MR SPEAKER: Please, let Mr Stanhope conclude.

MR STANHOPE: They choose not to listen. They choose not to be concerned about the fact that in that evidence there is clear reference to the fact that bureaucrats, public servants, at senior levels were fully aware. We are running this amazing argument now: "Well, as long as I personally did not know, I am not responsible. I, the Minister, was not personally told; therefore I, the Minister, am not personally responsible".

Mr Berry: That is reckless.

MR STANHOPE: That is reckless and it falls directly within the quote that Mr Wood made from Mr Moore. I must say that I was impressed with the words. It is precisely that that Mr Moore says is the standard. Mr Moore has suddenly discovered a higher standard, beyond reasonable doubt. That was not his previous standard by any means.

The other major factor in this case, the one that I have noticed, the one that not a single member of the Government or those who will not support this motion has addressed, is the fact that the Chief Minister and the Deputy Chief Minister consistently and persistently insisted that there were three sets of documents; that there were three sets of leases or, if not leases, there were three sets of block documents. As we all know, you cannot have three sets of block documents. They simply do not exist. They insisted time and time again that there were three sets of lease documents and that they actually saw Mr Whitcombe bring the documents in to the Government. Mr Humphries said that Mr Whitcombe brought them in and put them on the Chief Minister's table. I think it is interesting that not a single one of those who have indicated they will not support this motion have explained away how that is not a direct and deliberate misleading of this Assembly. How is it not a direct and deliberate - not reckless - misleading of this Assembly for the Chief Minister and the Deputy Chief Minister, assisted by Mr Lilley, to say that they actually saw the documents; that they saw these three sets of documents? Mr Osborne questioned Mr Gilmour in estimates at length about this. He asked, "How did this happen?".

Mr Humphries: I did not say I had seen the documents.

MR STANHOPE: I will not repeat it but you said repeatedly, as did the Chief Minister, that Mr Whitcombe brought in three sets of documents, the actual documents, the physical documents. But there are not three sets of documents. There never have been and never can be. As Mr Corbell indicated in his presentation earlier today, we got into this situation because quite legitimately we in the Opposition simply wished to better understand why it was that the Government entered into this arrangement in the first place. All this stems from that. The debate we have had and the questions the Opposition has asked stem from a reasonable desire by the Opposition to understand why in the first place we, the people of the ACT, entered into an arrangement with Mr Whitcombe to develop a certain block of land. Why him? We were given a reason. It went to the fact that Mr Whitcombe supposedly brought something to the table.

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .