Page 496 - Week 02 - Thursday, 22 February 1990
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Mr Collaery wrote back and said that his remarks had not been directed - surprise, surprise - towards Mr Enfield personally. He said that he had not made any suggestions about Mr Enfield or any other named public servant - that is the worst part about this, they were all unnamed; well, only one was named, but we will come to him. Mr Collaery said he was interested in the cut and thrust of politics; his statements were generally intended as a criticism of the Federal Labor Party. "This is a political debate and I see no reason why you should join issue with this particular matter". This is the particular point and it is the style of the man that once there is rebuttal of his claim he shifts ground, he changes ground and moves to another spot.
When the Assembly first met for business on 23 May last year the very first question that Mr Collaery asked was in relation to a public servant and corruption and the allegations of corruption in relation to an investigation. He put:
... Mr Lyon had encouraged the director of internal investigations to investigate the surrender and regrant of two blocks at Turner owned by a company of which a senior ACT Administration official was a director?
Mr Jensen's question on the same day followed up the same theme, and thus began the pursuit of Tony Hedley.
On 1 June we had the most scurrilous attack - on a person who has got no rights within this chamber - that could ever have happened in any House of Assembly, Legislative Assembly, or legislature within this country. This was an attack on Tony Hedley. In that speech by Mr Collaery on 1 June, commencing at page 330 in the Hansard, 11 specific allegations were made and this is the tenor of them. He spoke about white-collar crime, the conflicts of interest, the commercial landlord practices and the fact that one of the principal ACT Administration advisers was himself a commercial landlord. Further, why was the landlord contribution not revealed? Further, it was stated that Mr Tony Hedley is a director and that:
... the Chief Minister advised that the officer who took the decision did so on the basis that it was open to Hamed ... to obtain the benefit of the erroneous previous decision.
There was the allegation of the purchase of land from two widows, and the emotiveness that that implies, and that the leases were surrendered but no fee was paid on the extension of the loan. Then a sentence which commenced:
An honest official handling the matter asked for clarification -
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .