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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 1 Hansard (20 February) . . Page.. 246 ..

MS TUCKER (continuing):

the fact remains that there has still been no justification for the decision to remove Ms Rees. I would be very interested to get a guarantee from Mrs Carnell and members of her Government that they themselves have never been guilty of attacking public servants in this place. I would be very glad to receive that assurance from the Chief Minister, and I am asking that she give it to the members of this place in her response.

Ms Rees did not even speak out about the consultative processes of the Interim Kingston Foreshore Development Authority, the authority she was sacked from. She spoke out in criticism of the strategic plan, as did many other members of the community and members of this place. Mr Moore, I remember, did speak very strongly about the strategic plan. Mr Moore, expressing his outrage on this issue, threatened to move a motion of no confidence in the Minister unless Ms Rees was reinstated. In his response to a controversial question from Mr Osborne, he said:

... the message that has now been sent out is that, if you agree with the Government, that is okay, you can come onto their committees. If you disagree with them or you say anything outside of it, then you can expect to be punished by Mr De Domenico and by this Government.

It appears that this Government's respect for frank and fearless advice does not stretch to the community sector. The farcical nature of this ditching - and perhaps it is reflective of a lack of a whole-of-government approach - is shown by the letter Mr Moore referred to today in question time that was sent to Ms Rees from a senior executive thanking and complimenting her on her contributions to the Kangaroo Advisory Committee. Obviously, some members of the bureaucracy are very appreciative of Ms Rees's input. Ms Rees has contributed much of her time particularly to planning issues in Canberra over the last few years, and this work is obviously respected and valued in many quarters, albeit irritating to others.

As we know, the Minister responsible for this letter has departed the Assembly, yet the matter remains unresolved. Ms Rees has not been reappointed. In fact, the matter has escalated, with a number of groups signing a letter expressing their anger at the ACT Government over the sacking of Jacqui Rees, the sacking of Bert Tolley from the board of Totalcare, and a number of other concerns about community-Government relations. Mrs Carnell has said she feels this reaction is completely unjustified, and she has said so publicly. The problem for her and for this Government is that you cannot ignore a problem and hope it will go away. Regardless of her opinion of the Government's consultative processes and its decision to sack Jacqui Rees, there are obviously many in the community who believe there are serious problems. If, for whatever reason, people believe there are problems, then this Government has a problem. I might add that people are not upset just because they do not like Government policy; they are upset because they do not feel they are heard.

These problems are by no means intractable. It just requires a change of attitude. That is why many people felt that a backdown by the Government by reappointing Ms Rees would carry symbolic, if not substantive, weight as an indication that this Government can respond to community criticism and demonstrate some humility.

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