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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2002 Week 12 Hansard (14 November) . . Page.. 3609 ..

MR HARGREAVES (continuing):

For example, we know that the diversion was not accidental. We do know that it was probably an officer within InTACT who did the diversion. We do not know what the intent was. We do not know whether it was an act of deliberate diversion for political gain or whether it was just incompetence. We did not have evidence either way, so we were unable to make a finding.

Likewise, when it came to assertions by some witnesses that X may have been the case, the committee was unable to find evidence either way. Where you read in the report that there was no evidence to suggest X, it does not provide an exoneration, nor does it make a finding of an actual happening.

Mr Speaker, I want to address a couple of issues in the report. I want to address the role of InTACT. I want to talk about how I considered the evidence regarding Mr Strokowsky, the penalties, Mr Smyth's dissent, and we will see how we go from there.

I found the assistance given to the committee by InTACT to be appalling. I thought it was dodgy. It was self-protectionist. They need to take a good long hard look at themselves and their public service obligations to provide assistance to their parliament. I felt that getting a contribution from InTACT was like extracting teeth.

It was of concern that InTACT said it could not recover all the emails, yet months later, when the committee ordered them to do so, they produced them. Either they were trying to avoid the issue or they were incompetent. I do not really care which.

Had they been able to produce the emails, the committee would have concluded its deliberations considerably earlier, and there would have been considerably less stress on people affected and named within the report. In this sense my sympathies go to Mr Strokowsky, because I think that could have been avoided. Despite the finding in the report that what Mr Strokowsy did was not acceptable, I lay a lot of that at the feet of InTACT.

The officers who appeared before the committee need to examine their behaviour. I was not impressed by their behaviour. I felt that they were unhelpful, to the point of trying to avoid the issue. Whether they were trying to cover up something or whether they were trying to cover up for somebody else is now for conjecture, because the hearings are over. But I had that suspicion for quite some time and I still have it, and I share it with the Assembly.

I wanted a finding of contempt against a person or persons unknown in InTACT. There are four criteria for finding contempt. If you find only three, bad luck; you cannot make a finding of contempt. I accept the view of the committee that we cannot find contempt against InTACT or an officer within InTACT. It was with extreme regret that I took that position, because I am convinced that such a contempt exists. I just wish I could identify the officer who perpetrated it and discover their intention. As Ms Tucker said, a finding of contempt requires evidence that there was improper interference, serious interference and intention and that the interference related to a member's duties. We determined that three of those applied.

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