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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2001 Week 5 Hansard (3 May) . . Page.. 1505 ..

MR HUMPHRIES: It may be the case, but all I know is that, when called for five or six years ago, that document was supplied to Ms Follett-who was still leader of the Labor Party-to refresh her memory of what she had said when she was given advice about what her deputy had done. At the time, the government invited her to table so that document so we could see what her reaction had been to that decision-whether she had overruled the decision or whether she had accepted the decision. Records show-it has to show very clearly-that Ms Follett declined to table that document. I am happy to be proved-

Mr Berry: The record will show that Labor's position was for Gungahlin.

MR HUMPHRIES: I believe that the reason it was not tabled was that it showed quite clearly that (a) Mr Lamont had made the decision and (b) Ms Follett had not overruled that decision.

If the Chief Minister and Deputy Chief Minister of the government both say that this will confirm the decision of the government-that is, half of the then government-we can say with some certainty that the Labor Party had decided to build in Dickson, not in Gungahlin. But I could be wrong, and there is an easy way of finding out whether I am wrong, and it rests with Mr Stanhope. If Mr Stanhope calls for the document, the document will be provided, and Mr Stanhope can come in here triumphantly and say, "Mr Humphries, you were wrong. Here's what Ms Follett said about this," or "Here's what Mr Lamont had decided." But I suspect Mr Stanhope will not seek that document, and I know why.

Ms Penelope Leyland

MR STANHOPE (Leader of the Opposition) (6.58): Mr Speaker, I wish to take the opportunity in adjournment today to comment on and acknowledge the work of a journalist at the Canberra Times who I understand is leaving the organisation. One of the journalists I admire most at the Canberra Times, assistant editor Penelope Leyland, is leaving her employment at the Canberra Times. Having regard to the relationship that exists between journalists and politicians, I think it appropriate that we sometimes acknowledge the work of our colleagues in the media.

I will certainly miss the journalism of Penelope Leyland. I regard her as the premium journalist on the staff at the Canberra Times. It is a tremendous pity that she is leaving and that we will not have the benefit of her erudite writings. I always found her contributions most sensible, usually entertaining and always perfectly well written. Ms Leyland was also one of the senior editorialists for the Canberra Times, and I must say it was always evident to me when an editorial was written by Ms Leyland, as opposed to the other major editorialists at the Canberra Times. I am sure we will notice over time the absence of Ms Leyland in the content of its editorials.

I do not know Ms Leyland, and I do not know why she is leaving the Canberra Times, but I hope she is leaving amicably and going on to a better and greater career. I do have this slight concern: I have always regarded the Canberra Times as a very blokey environment with a very male oriented upper structure, and I hope quite sincerely that the Canberra Times' attitude to the promotion of women within the organisation or the

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