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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2001 Week 4 Hansard (28 March) . . Page.. 1070 ..

MR STANHOPE (continuing):

stages. That is not being suggested by anybody. It is not a suggestion that is being made. I am not making it and I know of nobody in here that is making it.

Mr Rugendyke did make great play of people's concerns about a perception of a conflict of interest. Mr Rugendyke thought that was irrelevant. Mr Rugendyke did not go on to say whether he thought there was a perception of a conflict of interest; but that is another issue. It is in the context of the extent to which this issue has been raised and pursued that a whole range of other issues have now arisen. I will deal with a couple of them quickly. One is the point that Ms Tucker made in her speech, and I will just repeat it.

Ms Tucker asked whether the minister would confirm that all documents related to this issue that are relevant to the motion have been provided to the Clerk. (Extension of time granted.) Ms Tucker actually referred to a single document. She asked whether the minister would give an assurance that all documents relevant to the motion were provided to the Clerk and referred to one document in particular-the document required under section 15 or 16 of the CTEC act in relation to anybody who may have declared a conflict of interest. It is now quite relevant for each of us to know that. Ms Tucker asked for it to be tabled if it had not been provided and I think that it would be good if the minister could respond to that. If it has not been tabled, I hope that he has arranged for CTEC to bring it in here so that it can be tabled before close of business today.

I would like to refer just briefly to the Minter Ellison letter. I think it is ironic in the context of debates about conflicts of interest that we actually ask to be advised whether those that provided the Minter Ellison opinion may have declared their relationship with CTEC or the government. I would be interest to know whether Minter Ellison are CTEC's lawyers.

Mr Smyth: They are.

MR STANHOPE: They are. So Minter Ellison are permanently briefed by CTEC.

Mr Humphries: So what?

MR STANHOPE: I think it is relevant to know the relationship.

Mr Humphries: They are their lawyers. Of course they are giving them advice.

MR STANHOPE: That is right. So we are dealing with CTEC's lawyers here. So CTEC went to their lawyers.

Mr Humphries: Yes, and asked for advice.

MR STANHOPE: I am just asking about that. What is the relationship between Minter Ellison and CTEC or the relationship between Minter Ellison and the government? How much work does the government send Minter Ellison's way? Those are interesting issues in the context of conflicts of interest and the extent to which we can rely on this sort of advice.

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

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