Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .
Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2002 Week 7 Hansard (6 June) . . Page.. 2058 ..
MR SMYTH (continuing):
These are statements which are probably actionable. Perhaps the Liberal Party staff should take action against you for your slander of them. We might even think about that, Mr Speaker, because what is happening now is just a continuation of the witch-hunt.
This committee should not be formed-there is nothing to answer here. We, on this side of the house, have faith in the DPP and we have faith in the process that has gone on. We have assisted that process where appropriate. We accept the acknowledgment of that process and what it said-that there are no charges to be laid. The matter should be laid to rest there.
MR QUINLAN (Treasurer, Minister for Economic Development, Business and Tourism, Minister for Sport, Racing and Gaming and Minister for Police, Emergency Services and Corrections) (5.10): I had not intended to enter this debate, Mr Speaker, and I will be very brief.
Can I point out to the members on the other side that trying to make the Chief Minister the issue-I guess that, if I was in the position you were in, I would try to make the Chief Minister the issue as well.
The speeches we have heard today keep referring to what might have been and what accidents could have happened. I heard in Mr Humphries' TV interview today that "It might have even been a set-up".
Mr Stanhope: Yes, Mr Wood did it to himself!
MR QUINLAN: Yes. The 'could have beens'! But an inquiry will work through that. We walk on eggs here-let us face it. Most people in this house know, or think they know, more about this incident than we can say. "We have heard this," or "We have heard that." There is certainly enough around the place to suggest that it is worth looking at, anyway.
The only other point I wish to take up is reference to a prior incident about a DLO. I recall that incident. Really, I do not think it is a relevant call to say that, before-
Mr Humphries: It is a pattern of behaviour.
MR QUINLAN: Yes Mr Humphries. I agree that it may be a pattern of behaviour. Whose behaviour? Ask the Bender family, who were involved tangentially in the previous incident. Go and ask them, today, what they think of that incident.
I do not think it is very appropriate to revisit that. I do not think it helps your argument. I do not think it is appropriate to try to refer to that and say that, because, maybe, there are two incidents that have, maybe, some common feature, it is a pattern of behaviour. Maybe there were two incidents that were worth examining by this place!
MR STEFANIAK
(5.13): Regardless of whether it was you or the government who referred this matter to the police, I wish to make a number of points. I am probably the only person in this house who has been involved as a prosecutor of the DPP in types of
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .