Page 1163 - Week 04 - Wednesday, 6 April 2016
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
The Chief Police Officer replied:
There are matters separate to the CFMEU that were related to people who didn’t need to know that information.
The next question was:
And they weren’t union people that the information was being passed to?
The answer was:
They were just other people but not associated with the union.
The next question was:
What kind of people?
The Chief Police Officer said:
Other members of the public.
Kirsten Lawson asked:
Members of the Labor party or ACT staffers or members of the Assembly?
The Chief Police Officer said:
No, I’m not prepared to discuss to whom the information was passed or the nature of the information because as I said it relates to ongoing police investigations.
That is where the Chief Police Officer drew the boundary. In his professional judgement he was not prepared to disclose any greater information. If Mr Hanson expects the Chief Minister to disclose anything beyond that, he needs to explain the basis on which he expects the Chief Minister to do so. Whilst we may be interested in that, the Chief Police Officer has drawn a boundary. If the Assembly wishes to challenge that, we need to hear the policy basis on which it will be done.
I refer to further segments of the transcript. James Fettes from the ABC asked whether there were other elements involved in the evaluation that did not include the sensitive information that was passed. The Chief Police Officer said:
The concern originally was the information that was passed by one particular staff member went beyond a conversation that was allegedly had between that staff member and the CFMEU. The evaluation found that there were other instances where confidential police information was released to people who had no need to know that information.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video