Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Sittings . . . . Search

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2002 Week 13 Hansard (21 November) . . Page.. 3940..


MS TUCKER (continuing):

What we meant by "deliberate" was that it took a number of keystrokes to create the diversion. You could not have accidentally hit a button and created this diversion. So it was deliberate, in that it took a certain number of keystrokes. What we also said was that we could not say definitely whether or not there was still an accidental or human error aspect to that. We could not identify that. It could well have been an accident if someone had misunderstood where the diversion was meant to occur-but we do not know that.

All we know is that someone created this diversion. We do not know who, obviously, and I totally agree with Ms Dundas when she says that, if the IT service provider could not track how that diversion occurred, it is outrageous. The committee agrees with that. Perhaps it was intentionally diverted to Mr Strokowsky, but we did not receive evidence to support that. We had no evidence to indicate one way or the other.

Mr Quinlan is looking confused. The words are a little confusing and that is why I wanted to clarify it. When we used the word "deliberate" we meant that, as I said, you had to take quite a number of steps to create the diversion. So that was deliberate, but there could have been human error as to who the diversion went to. Perhaps there was confusion about names. Mr Strokowsky has a Polish name. As that was not established by the committee, I wanted to clarify it. That is something that obviously administration and procedures will look at, if Ms Dundas' motion gets up.

At 4.21 pm, the time allotted to the debate having expired-

Suspension of standing orders

MR HARGREAVES (4.21): I move:

That so much of the standing and temporary orders be suspended as would prevent the debate on this motion being concluded.

Question put and passed, with the concurrence of an absolute majority.

Privileges-Select Committee

Report

Debate resumed.

MS TUCKER (4.22): I also needed to clarify that Mr Moore's evidence was published. Obviously people know that now, but I do not know if it was stated here. In the first part of this debate, that was not understood.

Some members have said that this whole affair has tarnished the reputation of the Legislative Assembly. I agree that it has not been good for the reputation of the Legislative Assembly but, on the contrary, the report has not tarnished the reputation of the Legislative Assembly. In this report, we have taken a stand and set a standard. I believe it was Mr Smyth who made the comment that many privileges committees are reluctant to find contempt. The point is that the reluctance of various privileges committees to find contempt is not necessarily a reflection on this committee's finding, it is a reflection on those committees which have been unwilling to take a stand.


Next page . . . . Previous page. . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Sittings . . . . Search