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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2002 Week 13 Hansard (19 November) . . Page.. 3698 ..

MR HUMPHRIES (continuing):

It is obvious from the speech Mrs Cross has just given that she has considerable personal animus towards me and indeed my colleagues. There is no government which does not have the same kind of desire to knock off an opposition leader when they have the chance. Today, obviously, that chance presents itself.

The email affair has left the reputation of the Legislative Assembly tarnished. The events themselves and the mudslinging and the point-scoring around them have contributed to that state of affairs. No-one present in this chamber, myself included, does not wish these events had not occurred.

Members opposite, particularly the Chief Minister, have raised whether I should apologise, either personally or vicariously on behalf of the Liberal Party, for the events that the committee found led to a member of the Liberal staff being in contempt of the Assembly. As I said, I think the view I express will have little bearing on what is going to happen with the majority in this place, but I think it is important to put my view on the record.

Mr Speaker, my view is this: I regret the fact that Mr Wood did not receive the emails intended for him and that he has asserted that non-receipt of those emails adversely affected his performance as a minister and as an MLA. He has said there was a serious interference with his role in the Assembly. I do not have personal knowledge of how it affected his role, but I accept what he says.

Had I been aware that any email was reaching a member of the staff of the ACT opposition in such a way that Mr Wood was unable to receive it, I would unquestionably have instructed that such correspondence be forwarded to him and prevent its not reaching him.

Further, had I been aware that 38 or more emails were being received by this means, even if it were thought that the emails were only copies of ones Mr Wood was receiving, I believe I would have formed a view that such a large volume of correspondence would be tantamount to eavesdropping and should be prevented.

However, I emphasise that these were not the circumstances that confronted me, or even the ones which the staff member concerned claimed confronted him. Neither was I aware that any emails were being received, much less 38 of them; nor did the staff member concerned claim to have read as many messages as that. He claimed he was aware of only six or seven, and he claimed further that he believed that these may have been intentionally sent to him as blind carbon copies.

As a longstanding Liberal staff member and long-time party member, I chose to give this staffer the benefit of the doubt. In ordinary circumstances, we all owe that to our staff. If we did not have some faith in the integrity of our staff in the first place, presumably we would not hire them.

The committee did not believe the version of events that this staff member put forward. Whether it was right or wrong, the Select Committee on Privileges was the arbiter of these issues. It was duly appointed by the Assembly to be the arbiter of these issues, and I believe it behoves all of us to give its finding due weight. With the findings it made in respect of this particular officer, his position became untenable in this place, and his

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