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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1999 Week 5 Hansard (6 May) . . Page.. 1481 ..

Ms Carnell: No.

MR WOOD: No. Okay. I thank you for that. Certainly, Mr Moore's approach today is one of no disagreement with Mr Humphries as they continue their attack, I think quite unprecedented in the circumstances, on Mr Collaery. We can speculate - it is probably all we can do at the moment - on why that letter came so late, or why it was much delayed. Was it, as someone suggested, because of that Age article and some attempt to divert attention from that? Was it because of Mr Berry's amendment to the occupational health and safety legislation? I do not know. But I do not believe the Government or Mr Humphries has presented today the reasons why that letter had to be written. In my view it was not related to Mr Collaery's comments. It could not be, in view of that time delay. It is clear from all the remarks over the period and repeated here today that there is longstanding acrimony between these people.

I want to move on to the visit to the Bender family and, in doing so, point out that this is part of Labor's no-confidence motion. Certainly, Mr Stanhope did not devote anywhere near as much time to it as did Mr Humphries. The substance of the no-confidence motion and our arguments is much more than that. Let us look at this issue. Let us look at two sworn statements, and contrast those with two unsworn statements.

Mr Kaine: Four.

MR WOOD: Four, yes, indeed. Let us reflect, not on the differences, but on what is agreed or what is not contested. Let us look first at what is unarguable. An officer visited the Bender home and identified herself as coming from the Attorney-General's office. That is unquestioned. She is also, as we freely acknowledge, a longstanding and much respected member of the Croatian community and the Canberra community generally. Secondly, at that gathering at that house, in her presence, derogatory remarks were made about the person the Benders wanted for their lawyer. (Extension of time granted)

Thirdly, if we are looking only for uncontested items, the Bender family understood the remarks to be discouraging of the use of their choice as their attorney. Put aside anything else for the moment, as Mr Humphries was pleased to do when he argued certain factors. If we put aside anything else - and I do not believe you can - that in itself is very significant and most damaging to the Minister. Now we have read a further statutory declaration presented here today.

Mr Speaker, it has been clear throughout this debate that there is a level of feeling between the Attorney-General and Mr Collaery, coming from the Attorney-General, that has impacted on Mr Humphries' actions. He has not shown the ability to distance himself as Mr Humphries the Attorney from Mr Humphries the politician. The politician has triumphed, and for that reason he should no longer carry the role of Attorney-General.

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