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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2002 Week 5 Hansard (7 May) . . Page.. 1210 ..

MR HUMPHRIES (continuing):

to the fact that his counsel in the Supreme Court, in the proceedings to which Mr Speaker has referred, made comments about the intention of the Attorney-General, the Chief Minister, to table this report in this place.

I quote what Justice Crispin had to say in his judgment:

Mr Walker, who appeared for the Attorney-General, supported Mr Howe's submissions. He also stressed the fact that there was no evidence that, at the time he made copies available to the plaintiffs, the Chief Minister had formed any intention to table the report.

(Further extension of time granted.)

He informed me that since notice of the Speaker's submissions had been received only late in the afternoon of 9 April 2002, time had not permitted 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.

The Chief Minister's counsel in the Supreme Court was saying that, as of December 2001, the Chief Minister had formed no intention of tabling the Gallop report. Subsequently, of course, he said that he had formed that intention and that, as of 14 January, he said on ABC Radio, "I have a very strong desire to table the report." When asked about the inconsistency of these two positions, the Chief Minister said that there was effectively a change of mind: that as of December 2001 he had not formed an intention, but by 14 January 2002 he had formed an intention.

I then put to him that it is fair enough to change your mind, but what about the period preceding the election, where he said, and I quote from a report in the Canberra Times,

Opposition leader Jon Stanhope called on the Government to release the report, claiming Mr Humphries planned to keep it under wraps until after the October election. "The Gallop Inquiry will cost the territory the best part of $1 million," he said. "It is important its findings are open to discussion before the election."

On another occasion, he went on to say, "It's just a pity we won't be able to see it before he goes," referring to Mr Moore. A spokesman for the Chief Minister, which Mr Stanhope was by this stage, said that Mr Stanhope remained determined to issue a report as soon as possible.

We have here an indication that the Chief Minister, or at least Jon Stanhope, intended to table the report in August of 2001, no longer had the intention to table it by December 2001 but, by the middle of January 2002, had again formed an intention to table the report. What exactly was his intention? Was the failure to want to table the report in December convenient for the Chief Minister, who wished to cooperate with other people to prevent the tabling of the report in a public way? The fact is that it was a public document. It was paid for by public money. It had been commissioned by this Assembly, and this Assembly and the public of the ACT were entitled to see it at the first available opportunity.

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