Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .
Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 6 Hansard (25 May) . . Page.. 1794 ..
MR STEFANIAK (continuing):
be the case. Both Mr Gower and the secretary, Roma Hosking, have made public two documents which they wrote after the events described by Ms Tucker and which she read out to this Assembly.
If this was a matter where the Director of Public Prosecutions, for example, was asked to bring charges against Mr Smyth as a result of those letters, I can tell you from nine years experience in that place that as a result of those letters I would be highly surprised if a DPP would want to proceed. Quite clearly, as a result of those letters, it simply would not occur. Also, in terms of establishing a privileges committee, something that this place has never done, that is a very serious matter. Quite clearly, as maybe both letters indicated, there is an awful lot of politics going on in relation to this matter and we should never lose sight of that.
There is a final matter I would mention, Mr Speaker. From what I have heard, I really think clarifications have been issued. Public statements have been made and letters have been made public and tabled in this place, and that really should be the end of the matter.
As the issue of the Gungahlin Drive extension route is still before the urban services committee, the most appropriate place for this ancillary matter, which is tied up with that general inquiry, is back before that particular committee. Again using the court of law analogy, this is not particularly rare. It is quite common to see matters go back to a court for further clarification if problems arise during a lengthy hearing. That is common practice is courts of law. Whilst I would not say this is exactly like a court of law, that would be what would happen there. So, quite clearly, if anything further is to happen as a result of this, it should go back to the urban services committee for further clarification.
Motion (by Mr Berry ) agreed to, with the concurrence of an absolute majority:
That so much of the standing and temporary orders be suspended as would prevent consideration of Notice No. 3, Assembly business, having precedence of notices and orders of the day in the ordinary routine of business after consideration of the Appropriation Bill 2000-2001 today until the Assembly concludes consideration of the matter this day.
MR STANHOPE: My question is to the Attorney-General. On 4 March 2000, the Canberra Times reported that the family of Katie Bender had instituted legal action against the ACT government and Totalcare, among others, over Katie's death in the Canberra Hospital implosion. At a public hearing of the Select Committee on Government Contracting and Procurement Processes on 18 May, Mr Steve Palywoda, chief executive of Totalcare, said that that organisation would most vigorously defend a compensation claim by the Bender family arising out the tragic Canberra Hospital implosion. Can the Attorney tell the Assembly whether the government is, in fact, a party
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .