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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2002 Week 9 Hansard (21 August) . . Page.. 2676 ..

MR STANHOPE: I asked you "please advise me" on behalf of a constituent "as a matter of urgency, what action you have taken to arrange payment or part-payment of the monies awarded to Mrs Brown". In response, Mr Humphries offered a briefing from the Government Solicitor, which Mr Humphries says in his press release that I had on Friday, 13 October. Friday was, in fact, the 12th. At that briefing the Government Solicitor put his view that the government should not make the payment until it had seen the judge's reasons.

The Government Solicitor further advised me that he thought there were matters of principle involved in the decision that it had implications for medical practice in the territory, and that it might be considered worthy of appeal once the judge's reasons were known. I specifically asked the Government Solicitor his view about whether the payment was a major policy decision likely to commit an incoming government, and therefore subject to the convention.

The Government Solicitor was of the view that the matter was not subject to the caretaker provisions.

Mr Humphries: That is not what he told me.

MR STANHOPE: On 15 October, Mr Humphries wrote to me again, asking if it remained my view that the government should expedite the payment-a classic Gary. It had never been my view that the claim should be expedited. I have never argued the point.

Mr Humphries: Did you write back and say that?

MR STANHOPE: Yes, Mr Humphries, I did. Mr Humphries said he was keen for an answer because he was bound to seek my views under the caretaker conventions. I wrote back the same day:

Dear Chief Minister,

Thank you for your reply of 15 October 2001 to my letter about Mrs Amanda Brown.

The Chief Solicitor has advised me why he would wish at this time to withhold payment. I offer no comment on the merits of that approach.

I offered no comments on whether you should appeal or not. I went on:

The question is whether this is a major policy decision likely to commit an incoming government and, therefore, subject to the caretaker conventions. I discussed this point with the Chief Solicitor and he did not believe that any decision would be subject to the caretaker provisions.

That was his advice to me, conveyed by me to you.

Once again:

I would appreciate advice of your decision in this matter.

The decision was yours, not mine.

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