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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 1 Hansard (20 February) . . Page.. 269 ..

MR MOORE (continuing):

community groups have suddenly had the wind put up them. The message is very clear: Yes, you can contribute to this Government, but what you cannot do is get outside of them and criticise them, particularly if your criticism hits home. Had the Government members come in here and presented real evidence to us, instead of this make-believe evidence that is not sustainable, there might have been a sustainable argument. There was not. (Extension of time granted) Thank you, members. I will be short.

The critical part here is that this is about the message that is sent to community groups. Community groups have now been told, "Once you are on a Government body, if you do not want the ignominy of being given the flick, toe the Government's line. Yes, you can be a little bit critical; that is okay, provided you do not overdo it, and we are the ones who judge when you have done it".

Mr Humphries: On public servants particularly.

MR MOORE: Mr Humphries once again interjects, "Public servants particularly". The only public servants who have been hit are those who put their necks out, and what are we supposed to do? If somebody is a public servant and they make public statements, we are not supposed to respond?

Mr Humphries: If they put their necks out they are in trouble, are they?

MR MOORE: If a public servant puts their neck out and makes public statements, then of course I will continue to criticise them.

Mrs Carnell: You can say they are crooks?

Mr Humphries: Then you can say they are crooks, can you? I see; that is the way the rule works.

MR MOORE: Once again you interject, "Then you can say they are crooks", but you have not provided the evidence of where that is the case. You supposedly thought that this was evidence - her written submission to the board of inquiry, where she said:

There is a perception that public officials can, and do, use `inside information' ...

Is that saying that public servants are crooks? No, it is not. It is saying that there is a public perception, and that is true. It is absolutely true. There is a public perception like that. It is a public perception that the Stein inquiry also had to deal with, and did deal with. You just have not been successful. You have picked up the idea in your mind in some way that there is this constant accusation of crookedness, and it is not the case.

If you have been saying that there is a constant accusation of incompetence, I think we are getting closer. I think even that is drawing a bit of a longbow. As for incompetence in the administration, for example, she criticised the decision to appoint the chief executive of the Chief Minister's Department, John Walker, as a joint head of a review which led to the so-called strategic plan. It was reasonable to be critical. She was reported as having said this:

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