Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .
Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1999 Week 5 Hansard (6 May) . . Page.. 1462 ..
MR QUINLAN (continuing):
tangently involved would take the greatest of pains to ensure that their actions were scrupulous in every manner and in every fashion and quite clearly seen to be scrupulous to the same degree.
I have the privilege of being a member of a profession that, like the legal profession, has very high standards of propriety and very high standards of ethics. I make no claims to intimate knowledge of the standards of the legal profession, but I believe that in this affair, in a matter so grave relating to actions on behalf of government, any action taken by the Attorney would be at absolute best very injudicious and would represent a considerable ineptitude on behalf of the Attorney. I have witnessed in this place the particular skills of this Attorney, and I keep asking myself why he would inveigle himself in this case. Is it an act of sheer stupidity? I cannot believe and accept that it was so.
We have heard Mr Humphries advise us that any visitors to the Bender family in relation to this issue had nothing to do with him. Quite clearly, we have sworn statements on behalf of Mr Bender and statements presented by Mr Humphries that have conflicts in them. I have to advise that Anna Bender has been monitoring this debate today, as you would, I guess, expect.
With the Assembly's leave, I would like to read a statutory declaration prepared this day by Anna Bender and then to table it. It reads:
I, Anna Bender of 11 Rosebery St Fisher in the Australian Capital Territory, 4th year Arts/Science undergraduate at the ANU, do solemnly and sincerely declare as follows:
1. I read the statutory declaration made by my father on Tuesday 4th May 1999 and I say that it is all true.
2. I was present throughout the time that Y and X were in our house a few weeks after Katie's death.
3. I clearly recall being surprised when Y said words to the effect that Mr. Collaery was only interested in money and publicity, amongst other words - and that should not be employed. X reiterated everything Y said.
4. Mr Mirko Skrnjug was not there.
5. At no time when X came with Y did she say that she was representing the congress.
6. We fully support Bernard Collaery and cannot understand why Mr. Osborne does not believe us.
That is signed by Anna Bender. I seek leave to table that document.
Leave granted.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .