Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .
Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 8 Hansard (29 August) . . Page.. 2584 ..
MR STANHOPE (Leader of the Opposition) (5.26): I feel I need to clarify my correspondence to the Attorney. I now have my papers here. The Attorney insisted that I had not written to him subsequent to February of this year.
Mr Humphries: You have written once more.
MR STANHOPE: He has now had an opportunity to speak to his staff and he now suggests I have written once more. We might just go to the three letters I have written to the Attorney since his letter to me in February. I notice the Attorney now most ungraciously acknowledges that he was wrong before when he said that I had not written since February.
Having consulted his staff, he has now acknowledged that I have written once. I will read the three letters I have written since then. They are all of the same tenor. My letter of 13 March says:
I refer to your letter of 16 February concerning the Olympic Events Security Bill 1999.
I cannot agree that your letter dated 3 June 1999 was a reply to my earlier letter. Your letter dated 3 June canvasses issues to be raised at the Australasian Police Ministers' Council. The mention of the Olympic Events Security Bill in that letter is peripheral and, in any event, does not canvass the issues I have raised.
I repeat that I am supportive of the need to have Olympic events proceed smoothly but need your comments on the issues I raised on 23 April 1999 so that I can adequately consult my colleagues. I look forward to your substantive reply.
There was my letter of April 1999, the one that was not responded to. My letter of 9 August reads:
Dear Attorney,
I have written to you on a number of occasions about the Olympic Events Security Bill 1999. My most recent letter was dated 13 March.
As stated in my previous correspondence, I am prepared to offer bipartisan support, provided a number of serious issues are clarified. Notwithstanding your response to the Scrutiny of Bills Committee (which described the Bill as 'draconic' in its effect), I would welcome a more specific response to the queries that I raised in April 1999.
I would appreciate a substantive response to my correspondence and a briefing from the Australian Federal Police officer in charge of Olympic security ...
I note also the Attorney's suggestions about the difficulties he had with SOCOG. I also wrote to SOCOG and the responsible minister. It is interesting that Mr Knight, in his response to me, advised me that the minister for justice had also written to him and he had asked the minister for justice to consult with Commander Paul McKinnon of the Olympic Security Command Centre to resolve the issues of concern. The Attorney is now telling us that he has not been able to get any sensible response. I presume what he is suggesting is that Commander McKinnon was completely unhelpful, could not help
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .