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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 1 Hansard (20 February) . . Page.. 259 ..

Mr Moore: Environmental?

MR HUMPHRIES: Environmental, indeed; community-based concerns, whatever it might be. But there is inherent in that notion, I believe, that a member of a body of that kind is both able and willing to make a contribution. I would suggest to members of this place that there are both rights and responsibilities attaching to that. The Kingston Foreshore Development Authority is no exception to those principles. People who are on that body are, in a sense, engaged in providing advice to and a dialogue with the Government, as well as actually managing the process of developing the Kingston foreshore. I would ask members not to pose the issue in the terms of, "It matters not how members of those sorts of bodies behave; however they behave is all right. If they are representing a particular category or class of persons or a particular point of view or area of expertise, whatever they do outside that is quite all right. As long as they have that qualification, then whatever they do does not matter. They still deserve a place on the board or body". That does not make any sense.

Members know that there are criteria in legislation for statutory bodies which require the dismissal of people in certain circumstances, and I would suggest that this area we are talking about today is a much greyer area but it still amounts to a question of how far is too far. When does a person get to the point where their contribution is overshadowed by their behaviour on a particular body?

Mr Moore: Behaviour on the body?

MR HUMPHRIES: Their behaviour generally and their capacity to contribute in a dialogue with the Government or other bodies, for example, planning bodies, planning administrators, public servants, and so on. That is the crucial question.

I put to the Assembly the sorts of things that Jacqui Rees has said about a number of people, including members of this place, and ask them whether they think this is a person from whom the Government can constructively receive advice and engage in a dialogue. There are a few quotes. One was from a submission by Ms Rees to the Planning, Development and Infrastructure Committee inquiring into the Land Act:

The administration's -

that was the Planning Authority -

advice to government and the Assembly is not always balanced and honest.

I want to make a point here about what Mr Moore said. Mr Moore took the argument that it is perfectly all right to criticise government bodies; it is fair and appropriate to criticise processes and instrumentalities, even Ministers and individuals, if the circumstances warrant it. He said in as many words, I think, "If I can make these criticisms, and I often do, why should not Jacqui Rees?". There is a difference between the tenor of the sorts of things Mr Moore has said in this place and the things Ms Rees is

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