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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2002 Week 13 Hansard (21 November) . . Page.. 3939 ..

MR WOOD (continuing):

Let me give a few quotations from the committee report, because I think it says it briefly, explicitly and damningly. I will begin with the very last sentence. I will put this on the record because I acknowledge this. At 5.43, it says:

The committee found no evidence to suggest that any member of the Assembly had any knowledge of Mr Strokowsky's access to Mr Wood's e-mails. Nor did it find evidence that any other member of the Opposition's staff in the Assembly had sufficient knowledge of the access and use being made of the e-mails to suggest that any other member of the staff could also be in contempt...

In all, I think there were five opposition staffers published who knew about it. I read that paragraph deliberately, but let me go back to 5.36:

Mr Strokowsky knowingly received, and without a reasonable excuse, retained and used e-mails destined for a member of the Legislative Assembly, Mr Bill Wood MLA. He also knew that he had no right to receive the e-mails. He took no steps to end his unauthorised access to Mr Wood's e-mail.

It goes on at 5.37:

The committee can certainly conclude that Mr Strokowsky's 'eavesdropping' on and use of the e-mails was an improper breach of Mr Wood's privacy and an improper interference with his communication with his constituents and colleagues.

There we are. The committee says it exactly as it is, at 5.39:

The improper interference was clearly intentional. The committee believes that Mr Strokowsky was fully aware that he was receiving e-mails to which he had no right and that his failure to advise Mr Wood of this shows that he was happy to let that access continue. His actions in copying, retaining electronically and distributing some of the e-mails to his colleagues demonstrate that he was prepared to make use of them.

It is pretty clear, is not it? From his statement on Tuesday last, it is clear that Mr Humphries still refuses to accept the seriousness of these facts. In this, he has considerably diminished himself and the Liberal Party in this place. He has censured himself. Mr Strokowsky has resigned belatedly, but he has resigned. In doing so, he has displayed a higher standard than Mr Humphries appears capable of.

MR SMYTH (4.19): Mr Speaker, I think that, at this stage, the chairman of the committee may like to take the opportunity to make a few closing remarks on the report, given the debate we have now had. I will hand over to my colleague on the committee, Ms Tucker.

MS TUCKER (4.19), in reply: I will make a few closing comments. There were also a few comments made during this debate the other day. Firstly, I need to clarify something. I think perhaps Ms Dundas did not fully understand what the committee was saying on one issue-and someone else too, but I cannot remember who it was. That is the question of the word "deliberate". We used the word "deliberate" in the committee in referring to the diversion in InTACT, at system administration level.

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