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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1999 Week 5 Hansard (6 May) . . Page.. 1483 ..

MR HARGREAVES (continuing):

service to anybody who would ask. Indeed, we never go into content. We merely ask people to swear that what they have said is true and to do so solemnly. The significance of a statutory declaration and an unsworn statement should not be underestimated.

In these statements there are some contradictions. I would like to draw attention to a couple of them if I may. It has been portrayed that Ms X and Mr Skrnjug went to the Bender house. Indeed, that is what Ms X said, I believe, in her statements. Then it is implied that she went later in the company of Ms Y. That is okay. Mr Skrnjug says in his unsworn statement of 5 May that he and Ms X had a conversation outside the Bender house where he suggested that she come with him to see the Bender family as soon as things had settled down and that she agreed to do this. He then goes on to say:

That was not before the event. The timing was not that Mr Skrnjug and Ms X went to the house and then later Ms X went back. It was the other way round. It casts doubt on that sort of thing.

Mr Humphries: You have got that mixed up.

MR HARGREAVES: Mr Temporary Deputy Speaker, I appeal to you to uphold your predecessor's ruling that people sit there in silence.

MR TEMPORARY DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Hird): Interjections are not encouraged and certainly will not be supported by the Chair.

MR HARGREAVES: I appreciate your support, Mr Temporary Deputy Speaker. If I hear one, with your indulgence I shall repeat it to you.

MR TEMPORARY DEPUTY SPEAKER: Just bring it to my attention, Mr Hargreaves.

MR HARGREAVES: I will, indeed. When the Attorney-General spoke first thing this morning, he gave the impression - I cannot quote the exact words because we do not have the draft Hansard before us - that the first time he saw the statutory declaration was this morning. I do not doubt that that is true. What I do doubt, however - and I acknowledge that this was not put forward before - is that members of his office had not seen it. I have this doubt because on 5 May, which was yesterday, according to the statement from Ms Y, Ms X relayed to her over the phone that Mr Bender had signed a statutory declaration in regard to a conversation that allegedly took place at the Benders' residence during her visit with Ms X. It was clearly known sufficiently by the Attorney-General's office that this thing existed, and damage control clicked in. I do not have a difficulty with that. I would do exactly the same thing. The understanding that I got was that this statutory declaration by Mr Bender was something new. I do not believe it was new. If that was the implication, if I have misread it, then fine; I am happy to admit that. If I have not misread it, then I have a problem with it.

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