Page 1166 - Week 04 - Wednesday, 6 April 2016
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
As members in this place know through the media, the Chief Police Officer alerted me to a conversation between the CFMEU and my former chief of staff. The conversation took place in April last year. The conversation came to light through what I believe was a leak from a phone tap suspected to be from the trade union royal commission. I thank Mr Rattenbury for referring to that very important question. Having regard to all the questions that could be asked, the leak, possibly from the royal commission into trade unions, is something that is not being investigated, and I find that curious.
The Chief Police Officer initiated an evaluation to see if there was any criminal activity involved, and I go back to that conversation. At no point since December last year to 17 March this year has any specific allegation or question been put to me. I have no knowledge of the information provided by the Chief Police Officer to the Chief Minister or to the attorney, or, indeed, the information that could have been provided in conversations with Shane Rattenbury, going to his comments made just before. I have no information before me at all. I have not been briefed on any aspect of this evaluation by the Chief Police Officer.
I would like to put on record comments that I have received. As I understand it, the former chief of staff was provided with questions. These have been described as being broad and focused on discussions between the chief of staff and the CFMEU. I have been told that these questions were directed through her legal counsel. I am also told that her legal counsel declined to respond due to tight time frames applied to that response by ACT Policing. In relation to other staff, there have been no questions or allegations put to anyone. Let us recall that this evaluation was initiated to consider criminal activity, so it is not unreasonable to seek legal counsel.
Another staff member was contacted by AFP security asking about a conversation regarding the role of the CPO and the way information was shared in a minister’s office. The staff member referred them to their legal counsel. No contact was made with the legal counsel. The evaluation has been concluded without the input of any staff member. This is indeed a sensitive matter. It is concluded. I welcomed the conclusion that there was no criminal activity involved, and I have made comment on this in response to comments that have been made in the public arena.
I have remained silent on this for a range of reasons, and I do not expect to change my habit of being silent on this now. I consider the matter closed. It is a distressing situation for all involved. My former chief of staff is in the gallery. I think it is the first time I have seen her since December last year. I am almost positive it is the first time I have seen her since December last year.
This goes back to a conversation in April that came to light through an investigative journalist from the Australian Financial Review, regarding the royal commission into trade unions. That is not being investigated; rather, these other indiscretions, of which I still have no knowledge, are being investigated. I hope that all in this chamber have respect for the people involved. The CPO has been very clear that he considers the matter closed, and that is where it should rest.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video