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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2002 Week 12 Hansard (14 November) . . Page.. 3610 ..

MR HARGREAVES (continuing):

I turn to Mr Strokowsky and the criteria for contempt. The first criterion is improper interference. Improper interference, as Ms Tucker said, can occur through omission. Leaving open the possibility that something will drop into the lap, in my view, is an omission. Nothing was done to close that up. It also goes to intent. I believe that the continued retention of a number of emails was integral to the whole issue.

Another criterion is improper interference in the free performance of a member in his or her duties as a member. The very first email had a considerable amount of sensitive material within it. Whether Mr Strokowsky knew or did not know that Mr Wood was not receiving that email, delay of that communication from that agency had nasty consequences.

The contention that these emails might have been intended for Mr Strokowsky cannot be sustained. Nothing will convince me that a communication from a union to a minister indicating the attendees and the agenda for a meeting between that union and the minister was intended for an opposition staff member. Nothing will convince me that, as with the first email, an agency dealing with people's difficulties would deliberately send a copy of the details to a staff member of the opposition when dealing with the minister. Nothing on earth will convince me that a staff member of the minister's office would deliberately send a copy of correspondence he was having with his minister to a staff member of the Leader of the Opposition. No way in the wide world could anybody believe that.

We talk about serious interference. I believe that was proved. I have mentioned already the particularly sensitive email. There were 38 emails altogether, but it needs to be noted that they were in two periods. The first period was from 27 November to 16 February, when there were 23 emails. During that period Mr Strokowsky was on leave. How one gets to be on leave when one is an unpaid volunteer is, I am afraid, beyond my comprehension. However, for the sake of the argument we will not go down the pedantry trail.

From 16 February to 26 February or thereabouts there were a further 15 emails. During that period one of them was shared with the Leader of the Opposition's chief of staff. To her credit, she was quite concerned and quite agitated about it. The other one was taken to Mr Moore, a staff member of Mrs Cross, who too had some concerns about it. They are two that were copied and shared about.

Another one was sent very late in the piece. It was retained for about a month after others had been deleted. It seems to me that it was hung on to for possible use later down the track. It was in his possession. We have copies of that email. We have seen the emails. If the first 23 had been inadvertent and the person had said, "Whoops, look at that, you beauty"and decided to delete the lot, fine. The following 15 were not. I do not accept that at all.

The intention to use them for interference in the minister's duties is borne out, in my view, by the retention of the opportunity. We talk about the defence of it falling off the back of a truck. I do not believe that is so. That usually is so when you get one or maybe two. But to make sure that the truck goes past your place and goes over a speed hump to make sure that things falls off there for three months-I am sorry, I do not agree with that.

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