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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2002 Week 13 Hansard (19 November) . . Page.. 3703 ..

MR QUINLAN: That is exactly right. It does not mean that things did not happen. I would ask the Assembly to consider some of the following: the committee did conclude that the diversion of Mr Wood's emails was deliberate. I have not heard any debate against that.

Mr Humphries: Not by a staff member of the Liberal Party.

MR QUINLAN: Just wait for it. It was a deliberate diversion. One presumes, and I am presuming, that it was a deliberate diversion to Mr Strokowsky. The first coincidence that leaps out at one as one reads this report is that Mr Strokowsky just happened to be the tactician within the opposition ranks and, as we understand, generally in charge of the formulation of questions for question time.

If someone really wanted the Liberal Party to have the Labor Party government emails, then that would be the route to be chosen. Therefore, it does leave in my mind-

Mr Humphries: Mr Speaker, I think it is fairly clear that what the Deputy Chief Minister is alleging or suggesting is that there was some act or conspiracy to have Mr Strokowsky receive those emails.

Mr Hargreaves: What is the point of order?

Mr Humphries: That is a reflection on members of this place, because members of this place were allegedly responsible for that. It is a very serious allegation. Mr Speaker, first of all, it is a serious allegation with respect to the staff member concerned. The committee found quite explicitly that Mr Strokowsky was not responsible for the diversion. So if it is not a reflection on Mr Strokowsky, then it is a reflection on other staff in the Liberal Party team or it is a reflection on Liberal members. Either way, it is a reflection on somebody on the first floor of the Assembly.

MR QUINLAN: No, it is a reflection on the one-armed man, mate-Mr X.

Mr Humphries: It is not that. It is clearly a reflection on somebody to do with the Liberal Party. That is the mud Mr Quinlan wants to stick.

MR SPEAKER: Order! Mr Humphries, you have not drawn a connection between what Mr Quinlan has said and a member in the Assembly, so I am unable to rule in your favour. I do say to members, though, to be cautious about the way they deal with staff, because staff in the ordinary course of events are not in a position to defend themselves in this place. But at the same time there has been a report to this Assembly. The question before the house is that the report be noted. A staff member has been mentioned adversely in the report. What you seem to be suggesting is that I rule out anything which reflects on the decisions of the committee. I cannot do that.


: I might then move straight to Mr Strokowsky and his evidence. Evidence recorded in the report is that Mr Strokowsky started out by saying he received five or six, and the report states that he received 38. Mr Strokowsky copied at least two of those emails he received and handed two of those to other members of the opposition staff. He stated before the committee that that was the same email, and it was not.

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