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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2002 Week 13 Hansard (19 November) . . Page.. 3707 ..

MR SPEAKER: You can make a statement pursuant to standing order 47 if something that you have said is being misquoted, or indeed you can seek leave to speak further.

MR HUMPHRIES: I do not think it is really a standing order 47 matter. I seek leave to make a further statement to the house.

MR SPEAKER: Is leave granted?

Mr Quinlan: Can we do that at the end of the debate?

MR HUMPHRIES: Come on, it is pretty relevant to this matter.

MR SPEAKER: Order! Leave has been sought. Is leave granted?

Leave granted.

MR HUMPHRIES: I thank members. I want to respond immediately to this allegation, Mr Speaker. Mrs Cross has alleged that she had a conversation with Mr Moore in which Mr Moore was supposed to have told her that I had told Mr Osborne that I knew about the emails. If this occurred after, as Mrs Cross puts it, the raid on Mr Strokowsky's office, then of course that would be true, because, as I said to the police when they interviewed me, I was told about this matter by the police a couple of days before the raid, as she puts it, took place. So if the conversation she refers to was a conversation with Mr Osborne that took place after that point in time, then obviously I would have known about the emails, because by then it either had become public knowledge or was about to become public knowledge.

If she is alleging, as I think she is trying to do, that the conversation supposedly held with Mr Osborne took place before the matter was drawn to my attention by the police-and that presumably is the only reason she puts it into this debate-then it is completely and utterly false. I can say first of all that I had no such conversation with Mr Osborne. Secondly, I would be surprised if the committee did not make reference to that evidence had it been given by Mr Moore.

I understand from Mr Smyth that the evidence Mr Moore gave to the committee is now on the public record, is no longer in camera, and I assume that in this debate one of the members of the committee can stand up and read what Mr Moore actually said about that matter. If it was in some way raised, it should have been put to Mr Moore and he should have had the chance to comment on it.

But I can tell you that, whatever he said, it is not true. There was no such conversation. It is a symbol of what is going on in this debate that in the course of this debate, after the committee has reported, Mrs Cross raises this allegation afresh. What sort of kangaroo court is it where, after the findings have been brought down, people bring forward further evidence?

Mr Quinlan has given evidence about how he heard interjection from the opposition on that day. Why did he not tell the committee that? Mrs Cross has given evidence that she knew about a hearsay conversation with Mr-

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