Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2002 Week 3 Hansard (7 March) . . Page.. 702 ..
MR QUINLAN (continuing):
discussed it and, as I said, the couple of times they have been used, they actually have been an advantage to the territory. I will leave it at that.
MR SPEAKER: Do you wish to ask a supplementary, Ms Tucker?
MS TUCKER: Okay, I will ask a supplementary. In your thoughts and your decision on this, will you take into account the commitment that you did make in opposition-you certainly expressed support in opposition-for integrating the concept of ethical investment?
MR QUINLAN: Yes, we will certainly take that into account, but whether we involve ourselves in ethical investment is a separate question to whether we use derivatives. Let me say, as a Treasurer I understand that, so far, ethical investments are performing very well compared to open slather investments, so we may well be using ethical investments without necessarily doing it for very high-minded reasons. However, we will certainly take that into account.
Legislative Assembly-alleged security breach
MS MacDONALD: Can the Minister for Urban Services tell the Assembly what impact the interference with his emails that is the subject of police investigation has had on the operation of his office?
MR WOOD: I will respond by giving an example. Coincidentally, yesterday I received an email which, after its subject heading, said in general, "I have been sending to the old address given and, as the emails were not returned, I thought the address would still be valid. However, as I have not received a reply, I have rechecked the address and sent this third email." That one was to the best address. That is one example of the impact. This constituent first wrote to me on 24 January, I have discovered, and then on 14 February. I have no idea, in total, how many more people have tried to contact me and been unsuccessful.
MS MacDONALD: I have a supplementary question. Mr Humphries was quoted in the Canberra Times today as saying that the material was fairly routine, unexciting correspondence.
Mr Humphries: I rise to a point of order. Mr Speaker, you have ruled before on supplementary questions not having preambles. That sounds to me very much like a preamble, Mr Speaker.
MR SPEAKER: That is a fair point of order. Ask your supplementary question, Ms MacDonald.
MS MacDONALD: Certainly, Mr Speaker. Is that how you would describe constituent correspondence, Mr Wood?
MR WOOD: Leaving aside the question of Mr Humphries' stated knowledge of the nature of that correspondence, I regard constituent correspondence as some of the most important correspondence that enters my office. I take my commitment to the people of