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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2002 Week 13 Hansard (21 November) . . Page.. 3938 ..

MR WOOD (continuing):

Throughout this matter, the Labor Party has stood for the maintenance of high standards, which can be very simply expressed. The report does it well-basically that, when you receive emails or other material that is not meant for you, in this case in substantial numbers-you should deliver them to the person intended; you should respect the privacy of others and the confidentiality of material sent to a member; you should respect the role of members. I have described in this place in an earlier debate what that appropriate behaviour is-and we all know it.

Another of the opposition's avoidance tactics was to blame InTACT. That is a fair line to run, but not as a diversionary tactic, except when you are trying to avoid talking about the actions that occurred. Blame InTACT, or try to divert the attention to InTACT. I saw that as simply an evasion.

There was another matter of evasion: "Well, really it happened, but the emails were trivial-you know, only five or six"-or whatever number was decided. Was it up to six-or eight of them? "They were only trivial." Let me read what the report says at 5.18:

The e-mails included one dealing with a case before the Management Assessment Panel containing highly confidential client information.

That was as an attachment.

The Management Assessment Panel is a panel assessing the needs of people with disabilities. This email carried a warning that it was for the named addressee only. It went on to warn against any unauthorised use, and required an unauthorised recipient to inform the Office of the Community Advocate immediately. That is not trivial!

At 5.19 the report says:

Other e-mails were from the Cabinet Office of the Chief Minister's Department, a range of other government agencies and community groups clearly relevant to Mr Wood's duties as a minister and a member.

That is not trivial. "Other emails" were letters from constituents to me on their issues. Does any member regard those as trivial? I am sure they do not. So there is a third evasive tactic-blame the opposition for being out on a witch-hunt, blame InTACT-or, when it comes to the point, say it was only trivial.

From the start, Mr Humphries' approach has been wrong. I do not believe he has ever set himself a high standard. He has always sought to evade, attack the government, InTACT or whatever. That has been the case from first to last-from day one to last Tuesday. Last Tuesday, Mr Humphries said:

I repudiate the conduct which the committee found to have occurred, although I believe I still owe the staffer concerned the benefit of the doubt as to whether it did in fact occur.

For heaven's sake, what does that say? Mr Humphries is saying that that sort of behaviour is wrong-but of course his staffer would not do it. It is a denial of what has happened. Mr Humphries refuses to treat this as a serious issue.

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