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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 1 Hansard (20 February) . . Page.. 257 ..

MR BERRY (continuing):

in relation to the authority. Surely the Government did not expect Ms Rees to go quiet on her activities as a representative of the Save Our City Coalition just because Mrs Carnell appointed her to the board - or was Mrs Carnell trying to buy Ms Rees's silence? It did not work, and I think the Government has now responded with a most vindictive approach in relation to Ms Rees.

There is a history of these sorts of things happening in the ACT. This is not the first. Bert Tolley was dropped from the Totalcare board because of his union's constant criticism of the Government. They were active critics of this Government, and Bert Tolley paid the price. There is no question about that. It was quite pointed.

Mrs Carnell: His term was over.

MR BERRY: She interjects, "His term was over". Mrs Carnell will say the same about the director of mental health, after she made a scapegoat out of him because of some disagreements in mental health. There has been a constant signal to the community from this Government, and in particular from Mrs Carnell: "If you criticise me, you will get a kick in the teeth". That is what has happened in relation to this matter.

Mrs Carnell went to great lengths to defame Ms Rees over attacks on public servants. Mrs Carnell is certainly the one to recognise that, because her history in this place is peppered with attacks on public servants. I mentioned the director of mental health a moment ago. A senior officer, I think it was in Urban Services, suffered Mrs Carnell's attacks on her in this place. So too did the head of Education when something going on in education displeased Mrs Carnell. Mrs Carnell knows no bounds when it comes to getting her own way, and she will continually attack when she is criticised by people out in the community. There is no excuse for this from the leader of a government. It is shameful, and it brings nothing but discredit, not only to Mrs Carnell but also to everybody else in this place. I will not sit back and tolerate those sorts of activities.

Mr Speaker, this is an issue of principle. It is not so much about the individual concerned, although she has been hurt by what has been said about her in a cowardly way in this place. This principle is about treating people fairly. You appoint people to a government board knowing their background and their community activities - in relation to Ms Rees, she is a well-known community activist - and you cannot expect to buy their silence just because you put them on that board. I think that was the clear intent of Mrs Carnell, but Mrs Carnell forgot to write it down. Everybody is supposed to toe the line whenever they are given some patronage by Mrs Carnell. Some people who are activists out in the community believe in what they are doing and cannot be bought off. I understand how Mrs Carnell must feel about that, but her behaviour and response on this matter have been simply outrageous and shameful. It brings shame on this place to attack people out in the community.

I remind people of what I just said about Bert Tolley. Bert Tolley was given the axe, dropped from the board, because of his union's constant criticism of the Government, not because of his contribution to the Totalcare board, which was recognised by the then Minister. What happened after that was that Tolley's replacement appeared to be

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