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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 05 Hansard (Thursday, 13 May 2004) . . Page.. 1821 ..

MR QUINLAN: You have my word that there was nothing, there was no message of impending disaster at that meeting. I have previously in this place described how I changed my arrangements at the weekend because I do recall that one item out of that meeting was the prediction of a 40-year weather disaster. And I do not recall a message of impending disaster. Mr Wood, as far as I know, does not recall that. Mr Corbell doesn’t. Ms Gallagher doesn’t. Are we all liars? And for what purpose?

What we are saying about the content of the cabinet meeting is confirmed by the Castle interview a day and a half later. At nine o’clock on Friday, Mr Castle was publicly putting out a reasonably reassuring message, and certainly not messages of impending doom. But somehow, in the creative mind of Mr Smyth, he would have been giving us a different message two days before. That just beggars belief.

Invention No 5: Jon Stanhope was sighted at 6 o’clock on Friday night on Red Hill with Peter Lucas-Smith. This was referred to by Mr Cornwell, by Mr Stefaniak, and I think by Mr Smyth. Mr Smyth, while he was on his feet, tabled some minutes, as part of his case, of a meeting at 6 o’clock on Friday night with Mr Lucas-Smith in attendance. This Mr Lucas-Smith is pretty good—two places at once. You have put the case today—you have said it is one of the most serious cases brought before this house—and you are contradicting yourself. Hopeless!

Those five inventions are your case, and they were all misplaced and provably wrong. You drew the wrong conclusion from the six-second call. You drew the conclusion that there would have been a response call to a message that could not have happened. Your case falls apart, Mr Smyth. On the other hand, there is a simple explanation. Mr Stanhope may have had a non-alarming call from Mr Keady, which was followed within a matter of hours by horrific events, and that call would have been forgotten in the context of what happened beyond that.

Mrs Burke: How do you know?

MR QUINLAN: You might not like it but that is a whole lot more believable than the stack of progressive inventions that Mr Smyth has built a case on. There is no case made here.

I am advised, as we heard earlier, that Mr Stanhope was supposed to be stalking Red Hill at 8.30 on Friday. We have double-checked that and the report is that Mr Castle, Mr Lucas-Smith and Mr Ian Bennett went to Red Hill at about 8.30 on the Friday evening, not Mr Stanhope. Those three. But that doesn’t stop you from peddling it in the public domain.

Mrs Burke: That’s not what we heard.

Mr Smyth: That is the question.

Mr Stanhope: It’s not what you did—

Mr Hargreaves: It’s not what you said this morning.

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