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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 1 Hansard (20 February) . . Page.. 224 ..

MR MOORE: Mr Speaker, my question is directed to the Chief Minister. When a previous Deputy Chief Minister, the same one whom you have not yet talked about in this Assembly - and I can understand the reluctance by Mr Osborne to ask a question yesterday - sacked Ms Jacqui Rees from the Interim Kingston Foreshore Development Authority on 11 December last year, he made allegations about Ms Rees's fundamental unsuitability to serve on government bodies. You have since elaborated on Ms Rees's alleged failings, with a litany of allegations in letters to community bodies - allegations you have been forced to apologise for. Chief Minister, if Ms Rees is so unsuitable for service on an advisory committee, why did a senior public servant in City Services write to Ms Rees on 18 December, seven days after her sacking, to thank her for her contribution to a government committee, noting her effort and her valued commitment, and looking forward to a productive relationship in the future? In fact, Mr Speaker, I will quote from the letter. You will note that I am specifically not naming the public servant; I think that would be inappropriate. The letter reads:

Dear Jacqui,

I would like to thank you for your contribution over the past year to the ACT Kangaroo Advisory Committee. I appreciate the amount of time and effort that is required as a community representative and value your commitment to this committee. I look forward to continuing in 1997 the productive association that has developed ...

and so on. I am happy to table this letter. Could you state, for the record, your opinion of Ms Rees's suitability for service on advisory bodies and say how it coincides with the view of this quite senior public servant?

MRS CARNELL: Absolutely. In fact, I was going to make this point later in debate today; but, as you have pre-empted that debate, I am happy to answer that question right now. I think it really shows the even-handedness of the Government totally. What we have, on one hand, is an advisory body, a body that is there to gain community input; that is, the kangaroo advisory body. That body has to go out and ask the community and get community input. We have no problems whatsoever with Ms Rees in that position. Her links back to the community, in some parts of the community, are very real. There is not a problem there at all. The fact is that the Interim Kingston Foreshore Development Authority is not an advisory board. You are actually factually incorrect, Mr Moore. What it is is a redevelopment authority; it is a commercial board. If Mr Moore does not understand the difference between an advisory body that is there to gain community input and a commercial board - actually, I know that he does know the difference, Mr Speaker. The reality is that a commercial board, by the very nature of that board, must have confidence in the people with whom it works. It is a redevelopment board. Ms Rees has made comment after comment about planners and public servants involved in that area being people who are dishonest. I think "hands in back pockets" was one comment. She has made all sorts of comments about those people. This is a commercial body, and this Government will always see commercial boards as having very different roles from advisory bodies that are there to gain community input.

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