Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .
Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2001 Week 5 Hansard (3 May) . . Page.. 1492 ..
MR HUMPHRIES (continuing):
PALM, in Dickson and not in Gungahlin. The very party which was accusing us of ignoring Gungahlin had itself overlooked and ignored Gungahlin.
That debate raged for a few days in this place. In the end we asked for the public sector to produce any documentary evidence that a decision had been made to build a new office for PALM in Dickson. Indeed, a memo was produced which had been sent to the then minister responsible for those matters, Mr Lamont, and Mr Lamont confirmed publicly that the Labor government in its last few months of office had made the decision to build the new home for PALM at Dickson, notwithstanding the calls that were then being made by residents of Gungahlin to build the building for PALM in the Gungahlin Town Centre.
Mr Speaker, a memo was produced. Of course, it was not produced to this government because it was a document of the former government and, therefore, was not a document that we were entitled to see. However, it was produced and handed by the public servants concerned to the then leader of the Labor Party, Ms Follett. She was invited to table the document in the Assembly so that the Assembly could see what reaction the government of the day had had to the proposal from the public service that the building go ahead at Dickson, not in Gungahlin. The record will show that that memo was never tabled in this place. Despite several invitations, it was never tabled.
Mr Berry: It is a mysterious one, though, isn't it?
MR HUMPHRIES: Yes, it is.
Mr Berry: You cannot really demonstrate that what you said is true because you don't have the memo.
MR HUMPHRIES: We can produce it again, if you like. If Mr Berry invites me to table it, I can do that. A copy was given to Ms Follett, not the original. I can produce the memo for you. Would you like me to do that, Mr Berry?
Mr Berry: What about the other document that was produced?
MR HUMPHRIES: Mr Speaker, I do not think he does, somehow; I do not think that he would. There was a memo showing that Labor had passed over the chance to build in Gungahlin. It was produced for the Labor Party and they were invited to table it so that we could see whether this memo from the public service saying, "Let's do that," had been rejected or accepted by the Labor government of the day.
Mr Berry: I think there was another pertinent note, too, with Ms Follett's signature on it directing somebody to do something. Tell us about that one.
MR HUMPHRIES
: That is right, yes, there was. I am glad Mr Berry raises it. In fact, it was a copy of that memo which had gone to Ms Follett's office, the same memo. Ms Follett's recollection in the debate in this place was that she had annotated that note to say, "No, the decision should be made that we not go to Dickson. We should instead go to Gungahlin." That is what she told the Assembly she had directed the authority to do. What was produced, in fact, was a copy of a memo that had gone to her office with
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .