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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1999 Week 5 Hansard (6 May) . . Page.. 1487 ..

MR CORBELL: Mr Temporary Deputy Speaker, it was not a decision made easily or lightly. It was made in the full knowledge that the debate would be a difficult one. It was made in the full knowledge of the emotional circumstances surrounding the events to which this debate is partly attributed. It is a debate which Mr Stanhope, as Leader of the Opposition, and the Labor Opposition knew would get difficult. But the measure of Mr Stanhope is indicated by his willingness to pursue it regardless of that. That is the measure of leadership. That is the measure of a willingness to confront difficult issues. I have every obligation and every responsibility, as does every other member of this Opposition, to raise these issues which go to the matter of deepest concern about the ability of the Attorney-General to meet his responsibilities as first law officer of the Territory and as Attorney-General.

In this debate my colleagues have raised a range of issues. I want to raise only two. The first is that we have received two statutory declarations during the debate today. The first is from Mr Mato Bender. It says quite clearly at point 2 that Ms X said to Mr Bender that she was a lawyer working for Gary Humphries. The second statutory declaration, that from Ms Anna Bender, says that she has read the statutory declaration made by her father on Tuesday, 4 May, and she says that it is all true. She goes on to say at point 3:

That, in my mind, is the nub of one of the matters which the Labor Opposition has raised today. The question that members in this place must ask is this: Were those two people - not in any respect Ms Y, but certainly Ms X - acting in a way that could be construed to be acting on behalf of the Attorney-General? We continue to argue today that it can be construed in that way and it is certainly the view of the Benders that that was what was occurring. Those issues strike at the concerns raised today.

My colleagues have raised a range of other issues today which, as my leader, Mr Stanhope, indicated, reflect a pattern of behaviour which you can reasonably argue - and members in this place will have to judge - was designed to undermine the effectiveness of the legal counsel appointed by the Benders. That is what this debate is about today. Why should the Attorney-General do that if he is acting in an impartial, arm's-length way as first law officer? There is no reason why he should do that, if he was acting as he should be, but the fact is that he was not. That is why we have moved the motion today. He was not in any way acting in an appropriate way. When we get to the nub of that, what is the response from those opposite? It is not an attempt to rebut it in terms of detail. It is an attempt to rebut it by invective and by attacking the Leader of the Opposition.

Mr Rugendyke: It was rebutted by fact.

MR CORBELL: Mr Rugendyke says it was rebutted by fact. Mr Rugendyke was a police officer. Mr Rugendyke should know that statutory declarations are made under the Statutory Declarations Act 1959 and that people making them are subject to

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