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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2001 Week 4 Hansard (28 March) . . Page.. 1071 ..

MR SPEAKER: Order! One moment, Mr Stanhope.

MR STANHOPE: Why didn't this advice come from the ACT Solicitor?

MR SPEAKER: Mr Stanhope!

Mr Humphries: Because they are not CTEC's solicitors, that is why. Mr Stanhope made a fairly serious allegation by innuendo just a moment ago.

MR SPEAKER: Yes, I agree.

Mr Humphries: He is reflecting particularly on two people, the people who have written this advice. Mr Speaker, one of those people is a former president of the Law Society of the ACT, a distinguished lawyer in Canberra. Both of them, as far as I am aware, are highly regarded lawyers in the ACT. To suggest that they have written an advice because of some relationship with the government is outrageous and I ask Mr Stanhope to withdraw it.

MR SPEAKER: I think it would be an idea, Mr Stanhope.

MR STANHOPE: I was making no such allegation by innuendo, Mr Speaker.

Mr Humphries: What were you saying about it, then?

MR STANHOPE: If I am allowed to continue, and I will, I was completely misrepresented by what the Chief Minister said. I was making no allegation by innuendo.

MR SPEAKER: Thank you.

Mr Humphries: What are you saying about it, then?

MR STANHOPE: If you will let me finish, I will tell you. If you will just stay in your seat for a little while and let me conclude what I was saying, I will. What I was saying, and it is an issue that has been of concern to me for some time, was about the nature or the basis on which the government contracts out for legal advice. I think this is a very live issue. It is something that I have a major concern about. It is an issue I have raised over the last few years. I refer to the basis on which the government contracts out for legal advice. You know that one of the major areas of outsourcing that has occurred over the last few years has been the outsourcing of legal advice. This is the sort of advice that, until a few years ago, was always provided by a government solicitor.

I am making, I think, a very valid point and I will continue to make it. It is a point that I have been making for years. We have a right in these circumstances to ask: is the most appropriate way for a government to be advised by private practitioners? This is a firm of commercial lawyers. This is a firm of lawyers whose major clients in town are commercial entities and it is giving advice on commercial practices.

I would be much more comfortable, without impugning anybody's reputation or honour, if this advice had been provided by an ACT government solicitor. I could go out and get another advising on conflicts of interests and perceptions of conflicts of interest that,

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