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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1999 Week 7 Hansard (30 June) . . Page.. 1863 ..

MR HUMPHRIES (continuing):

that in their desperate attempt to pass this motion today members opposite not use the privilege of this place, the right to speak in this place, to make these sorts of innuendos and slurs. I ask for the sake of the Chief Minister's reputation that those opposite withdraw what they not only cannot prove but cannot even offer any evidence of in the course of this debate. It is beneath Mr Quinlan and all those who sit beside him.

Mr Hargreaves, in the debate, quoted Mr Sackar of counsel at length to prove the proposition that the transactions concerned were illegal. We have conceded that already, so I do not see that there is a great deal at issue in that particular respect. He went on to quote Mr Sackar for other propositions, particularly those going to the effect of retrospective guidelines. I would say to those in this place tonight that until we see the instructions which were given to Mr Sackar - the Government has already made available instructions given to Mr Tracey of counsel - we should not give much weight to that opinion of Mr Sackar, because obviously some things were said to Mr Sackar which did not appear in any written documentation and which must presumably explain some of the extraordinary remarks made in that particular advice.

In particular, we have had some comment on his remarks about referring these matters to the Director of Public Prosecutions. For the record, Mr Stanhope has written to me asking me whether I would refer these matters. I have written back to Mr Stanhope saying that unless he gives me any evidence - presumably the evidence he gave to Mr Sackar before Mr Sackar wrote his opinion - I have nothing to refer to the Director of Public Prosecutions. Again, in light of the remarks I have just made about Mr Quinlan, I would ask those opposite, before they make these sorts of slurs, to produce the evidence for them. You do not need me, Mr Stanhope, to refer anything to the Director of Public Prosecutions. You can do that yourself. I would ask you now: Have you?

Mr Stanhope: I take a point of order, Mr Speaker.

MR HUMPHRIES: Mr Stanhope does not want to answer this question. He wants to appeal to the Speaker. I am inviting interjection. Have you referred these matters to the Director of Public Prosecutions, Mr Stanhope? No, of course, he has not, because he has no evidence of them. He has no evidence of any allegations in this matter that would substantiate any matter going before the Director of Public Prosecutions, and he knows it. He was prepared to whisper in Mr Sackar's ear and say, "Mr Sackar, there are some things going on here which are pretty nefarious. You had better make a comment in your opinion about criminal behaviour and get the DPP involved". And Mr Sackar duly obliged. Mr Stanhope is not prepared to tell us tonight what evidence, if any, he provided to Mr Sackar to support that allegation. It was oral advice. Where is the evidence? Of course, there is none. I say to those people who are on the crossbench that if we have allegations being made in this debate which cannot or will not be substantiated - - -

Opposition members interjected.

MR HUMPHRIES: Mr Speaker, I ask for some silence. I heard all the speakers on the other side in silence.

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