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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2002 Week 4 Hansard (11 April) . . Page.. 1005 ..

MR HUMPHRIES (continuing):

the preparation of any supplementary affidavits, but that he had been instructed that the Chief Minister, who was also the Attorney-General, had not formed such an intention by that time and would call evidence to that effect if necessary.

Mr Attorney, these statements are clearly completely contradictory, unless, of course, you intended to table the reports in the media but not in this parliament. So can you say who was telling the truth-your counsel in the Supreme Court or you on ABC radio?

MR STANHOPE: Both statements are true, Mr Humphries.

Mr Humphries: That's a puzzle.

MR STANHOPE: No, no.

Mr Humphries: So you did or didn't intend to table it?

MR STANHOPE: What date is the press release? The press release is dated 14 January. What date was the counsel in the court referring to? The counsel in the court was referring to 23 December. The 23 December precedes, predates, 14 January, when I made that statement, Mr Humphries. For goodness sake! Who is the brains trust who is writing your questions? Who is the brains trust responsible for the Liberal Party's questions in this place? What date was the press release that you just quoted from? A statement on 14 January. What date were the reports released to the public servants? 23 December. What comes first-23 December or 14 January?

The counsel was quite clearly referring to the release by me, or on my authorisation, of the report to the public servants named in the report. When did that occur? That occurred before Christmas. Over two weeks later-three weeks later, in fact-I had come to a decision that I would release the reports.

Mr Humphries: So you changed your mind?

MR STANHOPE: No. Absolutely not. I just can't believe how puerile this question is. I provided before Christmas the Gallop report to a number of public servants who were adversely named in the report. I arranged for that to occur. That occurred before Christmas. At that stage I had not actually made a decision one way or the other how I would proceed with the report, other than it was my intention that it be released publicly. That was the decision that I made before Christmas, that the report would be made public at some stage and I would release it. I made that decision.

But in doing so, as I have explained in this place ad nauseam, I felt it appropriate that a number of public servants who were adversely named and treated in the report be at least given the courtesy of looking at it, that they should have the opportunity to see what was being said about them before they read about it in the Canberra Times.

But you, of course, have made your position and your attitude towards public servants abundantly clear in this place. You have done so in this instance and in a thousand other instances-that you don't care for them, that you deride them. But I felt it appropriate that those public servants named adversely be given an opportunity to have a look at it before reading about it in the paper.

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