Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2002 Week 13 Hansard (21 November) . . Page.. 3937 ..
MS DUNDAS (continuing):
The fact that this action must have been done with some support from an InTACT employee is also noted. I believe the person in InTACT responsible for this action should also consider resigning. That person remains unnamed. That InTACT staffer must be known either by fellow InTACT employees or by Mr Strokowsky. The fact that they are being protected is reprehensible. If the situation is that nobody knows who this person is, then I think it also needs to be considered in depth that we have an IT provider to whom this information is not available.
My final comments go to the widespread knowledge of the emails. It would seem that Dr Matheson, Mr Moore, Mary Elliott and Sue Whittaker had some idea about the emails Mr Strokowsky had obtained. Given that this is the case, it is difficult to believe, but not inconceivable, that other members of the Legislative Assembly or their staff did not have some idea about what was going on. This means that the level of trust in this building has been diminished by the actions which led to this inquiry. Some consequences have been paid, and others are yet to be paid, but the decreased level of trust in the operation of this building is what saddens me the most.
MR WOOD (Minister for Urban Services, Minister for the Arts and Minister for Disability, Housing and Community Services): I seek leave to speak again-and I hope finally-on this report.
MR WOOD: When the report came down, I accepted it. I made one comment where I disagreed, and that was on the penalty imposed. A different penalty has finally been accepted and I think that makes the report a very good one. I rise to express the government's point of view-its response to this committee report.
For the government, I would like to close off the debate in this Assembly, although it may not be the end of the matter. There has been a review of InTACT and how it works. Mr Strokowsky has forfeited his job and I believe Mr Humphries has lost reputation, but the opposition wants to move on.
I thank my colleagues. The response to this report is very much the way I want it. They have acceded to my request. There will be no formal censure of Mr Humphries. For me, the situation has been clear since Mr Strokowsky resigned. I am not sure there is need for a censure, anyway. By his actions, Mr Humphries has censured himself-his reputation is much diminished. He has not set a standard appropriate for an ex-Chief Minister, a leader of an opposition or a Senate hopeful.
Throughout this, Mr Humphries and some of his colleagues have defended their position, which I think has been untenable, by evasive tactics. Once, when we debated it, every member got up and said that we were on a witch-hunt-the word must have appeared in the volumes 20 times-that we were simply attacking Liberal staffers; that it was all us; and we were hyping-up the issue. Well, there has been an attack on staff-indeed I acknowledge that-and with unfortunate consequences. Two staff members have had to take stress leave. It was the Liberals who attacked their own staffers-and Mrs Cross too.