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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1999 Week 5 Hansard (6 May) . . Page.. 1443 ..

MR HUMPRHIES (continuing):

a conversation conducted not by X from my office but by Y. Indeed, I have to say that the statement of Mr Bender, which is on the table, does not contradict that, as I read it. I quote again from Mr Bender's statement:

The previous sentence reads:

Mr Moore: There is a contradiction there.

MR HUMPHRIES: No, he "was to be our lawyer".

Mr Moore: Yes, that is right.

MR HUMPHRIES: There is one statement here that may contradict it - "and that we should not make him our lawyer". Mr Speaker, it is clear that there are at least two versions of that conversation. Let us assume for a moment that the words were said as Mr Bender has asserted. Let us assume that both X and Y made those statements about Mr Collaery. What evidence is there that those statements were made either with my knowledge or at my instigation, in light of the very clear denial by X, Y, Mr Skrnjug and me? Indeed, there is no evidence to support that they were done with my knowledge or at my instigation. Neither Mr Collaery nor Mr Bender asserts that they were done in that way. The only person in this entire debate who has asserted that they were done at my instigation or with my knowledge is Mr Stanhope, and Mr Stanhope has not produced in addressing the motion he has moved against me any evidence of that knowledge.

Mr Speaker, I want to make one more point about this issue in this motion this morning. Let us assume for one instant - and I strenuously deny that this is the case - that it is true that I did ask X from my office to go off and talk to the Bender family about Mr Collaery. I ask members to ask themselves this question: What would be inappropriate about me conveying advice to the Bender family about whom they should use as their lawyer? I am the Attorney-General for the ACT. I am also a person who has practised as a solicitor in this town for a number of years. I know a very large number of the lawyers. I would have an opinion about a very large number of the lawyers. If Mr Bender had walked through my office door and said, "Whom do you think I should use?", I would not have felt any compunction about giving him advice about which lawyer to use. Indeed, I suspect that had Mr Bender or somebody else walked through the doors of a number of people in this place he would also have received very full and direct advice about which lawyer to use and which lawyer not to use. I think I could guess what kind of advice might have been given about Mr Collaery in those circumstances, particularly by members of this place who served in the First Assembly.

Mr Speaker, even if the allegation being made here is true, which, most emphatically, it is not - and there is no evidence for it to be true, not a shred of evidence for it to be true, except one that presumes - what is wrong? What has been done wrong here? Is the

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