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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2002 Week 12 Hansard (14 November) . . Page.. 3611 ..

MR HARGREAVES (continuing):

There is nothing accidental about keeping it open. In fact, it was not the first time. He had access to Mr Stefaniak's emails as a leftover from his previous job. But he was a volunteer in the Leader of the Opposition's office. It was not until one of Mr Stefaniak's staff insisted that that be closed down that it happened. It was sitting there available to Mr Strokowsky from when the Liberal Party became the opposition to the time when he went on leave. It was also available to him after he went on leave, until such time as he was pressured to close it down.

With those three, for me it was pretty clear that there was an intention to interfere. The rough and tumble of politics I reject because of the period involved and the sensitivity of the emails involved. I have not touched on the fact that some were pure constituent ones and some were ministerial ones, but I will come to that.

The fourth criterion is that the interference is related to the member's duties as a member. The minister is a minister appointed by the Chief Minister, but the minister is a member of this Assembly, and in his activities he is in a sense accountable to this Assembly. I believe that there was such interference. There were housing issues. There were a number of issues, not to forget the constituent ones. I looked at the 38, and I found about six which were constituent ones or general ones. The other 32 or thereabouts related to ministerial work.

That was keeping an opportunity open so that the minister would be embarrassed or so the opposition would have some ammunition against the government of the day. Be that as it may. If it is once or twice, I say good luck to you. That is the way it goes. We all hope that will happen. But I do not accept that keeping an opportunity open for three months is appropriate behaviour. I am pleased to say that that attitude is shared by senior staff members from the Liberal Party corridor and others who gave evidence to the committee.

You have to think of something pretty seriously if you are going to start a process like this in train and then cause the stress and illness that people suffered over the period of the inquiry and continue to suffer. I feel some sympathy for those people.

Mr Smyth, in his dissenting report, gave a fairly significant list of what the penalties could be. But it needs to be understood that punishment must fit the crime. If we are talking about precedent here, we need to be mindful of that. We need to be mindful of the dignity of the chamber, the dignity of the house. We need to be mindful of the fact that the hearings dragged on and that Mr Strokowsy has paid a penalty in the press already. (Extension of time granted.)

Notwithstanding how angered some members might feel about the process and the implications for them, we need to have regard to the future. I would have preferred a stiffer penalty, but I bowed to the committee, in the sense that we needed to put the high jump bar, I guess, at a certain level and have regard to the future. I will not go down that track too far.

Mr Smyth's dissenting report talks about two things, essentially. First, he does not believe there was a contempt. Each member is entitled to their belief. Mr Smyth has given his arguments. I disagree with him and the chair disagrees with him.

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