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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2002 Week 13 Hansard (19 November) . . Page.. 3704 ..

MR QUINLAN (continuing):

Mr Strokowsky promptly sent receipts for email that he received in the name of Mr Wood.

Within the limits of what I can say in this place, I do not accept the veracity of everything that is recorded against the name of Mr Strokowsky in this report. I have pointed up, I think quite logically, that there is a coincidence that the committee finds a deliberate diversion. I do not know by whom. It is not someone on the first floor, unless you have someone up there who is technically very literate and has access to systems that we do not have access to. Nevertheless, I am presuming that someone wanted mail from a seemingly redundant email box to go to Mr Strokowsky. Mr Strokowsky has given dubious evidence. Therefore, I would be concerned whether he had further knowledge of that diversion.

The report tells us who knew. So far we know that the following knew. Mr Strokowsky knew of this, of course. Sue Whittaker knew of this. Mary Elliott knew of this. Amalia Matheson knew of this, to the point of being agitated, quite upset and concerned-not reactions of one who had just found that the odd email fell of the back of a truck, to use Mr Hargreaves' terms. So there was on the first floor, according to the report-which I think Mr Humphries has accepted and depended upon in what he has said-clearly a whole raft of people that knew to some extent this was going on. The extent may vary, quite clearly.

I want to refer also to the question that was asked in the house, I think, of Mr Stanhope: "Are we answering all our mail?" It is stated in this report that the committee was informed that that question originated in Mrs Dunne's office and had absolutely nothing to do with this incident. That is what has been claimed.

Let me just add one bit of information. I recall, on the day that question was asked, a crack coming from that side of the house aimed at and naming Mr Wood. I have been through Hansard. It is not on the Hansard record. It is part of my recollection. I am giving that information to this house. I just want the house to know that and for people and members who read this report to read it within the context of that remark that was made on that day. So far what we have, Mr Speaker, is a series of coincidences.

Mr Smyth, in his defence, said that this was passive receipt. That is the defence of the Liberal member who sat on this committee, and yet he has heard that part of this passive receipt was to copy at least two and claim it was one, to distribute at least two and claim it was one and to issue receipts for two of those in the name of Mr Wood. I hardly think that that defence stands up.

I would like to close by saying that quite clearly this is not an edifying event. For me, this report leaves questions unanswered. Quite clearly, the questions cannot all be answered, because the committee has done the absolutely right thing and taken only absolute evidence to draw their absolute conclusions. (Extension of time granted.)

It has been an unedifying incident, to the point of some of the reports of incidents, even a physical fracas that eventuated between staffers of the opposition. One thing that does have to be mentioned is what Mrs Cross mentioned in her statement. The victims of this-aside from Mr Strokowsky, who is a victim, I would suggest, by his own hand-are two Liberal staffers who had the decency to stand up for the principles that underlie

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