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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 1 Hansard (20 February) . . Page.. 245 ..

Motion (by Mr Humphries) agreed to:

That leave of absence be given to Mr Stefaniak for today, 20 February 1997.

MR SPEAKER: I have received a letter from Ms Tucker proposing that a matter of public importance be submitted to the Assembly for discussion, namely:

The need for the Government to commit itself to community input and involvement in decision-making on issues affecting the community and to urgently restore community confidence in the Government's willingness to respond to concerns raised by community groups by reinstating Jacqui Rees as community representative on the Board of the Interim Kingston Foreshore Development Authority.

MS TUCKER (3.55): I have raised this matter of public importance today because of two recent events: The sacking of Jacqui Rees from the Interim Kingston Foreshore Development Authority and the circulation of a letter signed by a number of community groups expressing a number of concerns about this Government's dealings with the community. It is worth refreshing our memories over the train of events that have led us to this point. In December 1996, the then Minister Mr De Domenico wrote to Ms Rees and said:

... it has become increasingly clear that you do not have any confidence in the ability of the Government to manage community consultation surrounding major projects such as the National Capital Beyond 2000 Report or the Kingston Foreshore redevelopment.

Just where this letter originated seems to be a matter of controversy. What is clear, however, is that at no stage while Ms Rees was on the Interim Kingston Foreshore Development Authority did the Government produce one word of criticism about her performance there. Ms Rees has also not been given any opportunity to put her case or hear a justification from the Government for the decision.

Mrs Carnell is probably going to repeat her comments about Ms Rees's alleged inappropriate attacks on public servants. There has never been any substantial evidence of the implication that Ms Rees has unfairly criticised public servants and, what is more, this was not mentioned in the original letter to Ms Rees. Mrs Carnell tried to re-create history by claiming this was in the original letter and, although she later apologised,

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