Woodhouse MichaelHon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): For the several months that this saga has been going on my colleagues and I—in particular Mr Bishop and I—have been very very careful not to engage in questioning comments or observations that would have the effect of re-victimising any victim in any of the cases that the Minister has outlined. While that is a fine line to walk I think we have done that because no one in this House thought that the Francis Review was not a good idea however ironic it was that the biggest bully in this place was actually instigating it—that's right that being the Speaker—with a long track record by his own admission frankly and one who as he said in interviews came into this place when there were still people who had fought in World War II and it was a different time and he acted in a different way and he saw the error of those ways. I don't want to do that now but there are enough lawyers in this place and enough employers who know the importance of process the right to be heard and the right for the facts to be put on the table. That is what we have seen has been the failure here and frankly with questions that still haven't been answered and a Speaker that said one thing in one forum and said another thing in another. The Minister shakes his head but he still hasn't explained to me when he was briefed by Mr Gonzalez-Montero about the case—the very case that I believe he knew was at the heart of the Francis Review. He knew because the chief executive told him. Now before the select committee on—oh and I still want the answer to that date by the way—16 December when Mr Mallard came to the committee he said these words: I want to start today by restating the apology made both personally and in writing to the plaintiff." He goes on to say "I apologise for saying the allegation associated with the individual amounted to rape and that my understanding of the definition of rape at the time was incorrect" and so on. He talked about the Speaker needing to be above reproach. I agree with that. Then tonight he reaccuses the individual at the heart of this that he seriously sexually assaulted a woman. Now the lawyers can help me out here. What we've heard is he was forced to back down over an accusation of rape but maintains the accusation of a serious sexual assault. That to me says that he does not believe the apology he gave either to the plaintiff or to the committee. They were false words. He talked about the initial investigation being an absolute disgrace but that was the investigation that enabled both parties to be heard that brought in the Parliamentary Service legal counsel and the Public Service Association (PSA) and that on the balance of the evidence decided that the case—not that anybody had lied or that something didn't occur—could not be established. Now the matter of the fact that two people might have been working in close proximity for several months after the end of their investigation is I think—well in the Minister's words—an absolute disgrace. I think it speaks to something else that indeed maybe there was something of a détente a recognition of a misunderstanding. Who knows? And the Minister can answer if he wishes he'll have the chance. But the reality is the second investigation on the day this individual was dismissed was suspended he was driving to work hearing about a rapist in the building having absolutely no idea that reference was being made to him until Mr Gonzalez-Montero picked up the phone and called him into his office and told him to bring a PSA delegate. No interview no restatement of the facts no hearing his or her side of the story; out the door straight away. Well I know which one sounds like an absolute disgrace in terms of process and it's not the first one. So I go back to my initial point: on what date did the Minister get briefed by the chief executive about the individual that we are talking about?"