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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2002 Week 7 Hansard (6 June) . . Page.. 2052 ..

MR STANHOPE (continuing):

I know that the police investigated the office of the Leader of the Opposition. I know that the Leader of the Opposition arranged for a member of his staff to take paid leave, but I do not know the details.

I know of the allegations. I know what Mr Wood has told me. I know what Mr Wood knows. I know that Mr Wood's privacy has been grievously invaded. I know that mail that was addressed to Mr Wood has been redirected to some other person. I am advised it is likely that that other person downloaded that mail and, one would assume, read it-a grievous breach of privacy, a complete abandonment of standard.

This is not just about the law and the letter of the law-it never was. This is not about whether some black-letter law has been breached and that is the end of the matter. There are issues around the entering of the computer of a minister of state and reading that minister of state's mail, irrespective of the content of the mail.

Mr Humphries: There is no suggestion that the computer was entered.

MR STANHOPE: I see from the defence released by the Leader of the Opposition today that, in some way, the offence is not that grave insofar as the material did not seem to be of any great moment and was not used. What is the relevance of that? The defence is that there were not all that many bits of information, that the information was not very interesting and that the information was not used against the government. That is what the Leader of the Opposition says.

There is a whole range of admissions by the Leader of the Opposition in his press release today. He admits that a member of his staff had access to this mail. He gives us some indication, from his perspective, of how many bits of mail were involved. He gives his interpretation of the qualitative state of those bits of mail, and he asserts that they were not used. This is all a defence. In some way, this information then enables us to say that there is nothing to worry about. The Leader of the Opposition acknowledges that mail from a minister of state ended up in his office, but it did not amount to much and was not used, in any event.

We are talking here about some absolutely fundamental principles of privacy, morality, privilege and abuse of privilege. We are not talking about whether the Crimes Act may or may not have been breached and whether that is the end of the matter. We are talking here about fundamental principles of governance and of parliament.

I cannot believe you would suggest for a minute that it is not appropriate that this parliament inquire into all the circumstances of this incident; that this parliament should not have an opportunity to speak to officers of InTACT; that this parliament should not have an opportunity, through that committee, to speak to the Australian Federal Police; that this parliament should not have an opportunity, through that committee, to speak to members of the staff of the Liberal Party and the Labor Party, and that this Assembly should not have the opportunity, through that committee, to call members of the Assembly so we get to the bottom of this issue.

Surely it is in the interests of each of us to get to the bottom of this incident. This is the most appropriate way of doing it-through a privileges committee. That is what it is for. This is a fact finding mission to find out what happened, how it happened, who knew

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