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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2002 Week 4 Hansard (11 April) . . Page.. 1006 ..

Mr Humphries: But not the rest of us?

MR STANHOPE: At that stage, no. At that stage my intention was-this was the day before Christmas-that those public servants be given an opportunity to view the report. I stated at that time on those dates that I would give further consideration to the release of the report after I had received advice from the ACT Government Solicitor. At that stage, the ACT Government Solicitor had advised me that he would not be in a position, because of Christmas, to give me that further advice until, I think from memory, at least 7 January.

Mrs Dunne: 7 January, 14 January-when did you change your mind?

MR STANHOPE: I didn't change my mind at all. I said at all stages, I said at all times, that I would make a decision. I said at all times that it was my intention to release the reports. It was not until-

Mrs Dunne: Not according to the evidence yesterday.

MR STANHOPE: Mrs Dunne, there is a significant gap in time between 23 December, 24 December and 10 January. What are you saying, that-

Mrs Dunne: You just said you always intended to do it. Your representative said yesterday that you didn't.

MR STANHOPE: I just can't believe how puerile this is-that the Liberal Party cannot understand that at the time counsel in the court said that the Chief Minister had not made a certain decision. And I hadn't. I had basically at that stage simply arranged for a copy of the report to be provided to the six public servants adversely named, to give them an opportunity to read it. I had arranged to receive more detailed advice from the ACT Government Solicitor, which I believe he advised me would not be available before 7 January.

At that stage, I have to confess, I went to Broulee for a week and did not give the Gallop report all that much more thought for that week. Certainly, I had not decided during that week whether or not I was going to table it. But by 10 January, from what you say, I was making statements about the desire that I had to see it tabled. There is absolutely no inconsistency between the two statements-none whatsoever.

MR HUMPHRIES: Mr Speaker, I have a supplementary question. How does the Chief Minister reconcile his counsel's view, which he has now supported, that he had formed no intention to table the report at the time he said he handed the report to public servants, when during the preceding months of the election campaign he had consistently called for the report to be made public at the first available opportunity? If your comments are consistent with a change of mind or a forming of a view after you gave the report to the public servants, how do you account for your call before you even received the report that it should be in the public domain at the first available opportunity?

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