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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 1 Hansard (20 February) . . Page.. 270 ..

MR MOORE (continuing):

Whatever his other credentials, he knows precious little about planning.

I think it was a pretty reasonable comment. Probably she was thinking that he knows precious little about planning in Canberra. I think that would have been a more accurate statement; but we all know how, when there is a journalist asking these questions, we run them like that. I cannot understand, Mr Speaker, what it is about this Government that has made them so sensitive to these comments. They have read them in a particular way. They are looking for the nasty side in everything they read. That is how they are being read. Yet, when an ordinary person reads them it is just not there.

It is not a case of Ms Rees being critical just of this Government. When Mr Wood was Minister for the Environment, Land and Planning he came in for a lot of serves too. This is not something that is directed at this Government in particular. It was critical of government and government processes in general. I said to Mr Wood on many occasions, "You have to change the way the Planning Authority does things and the way the Planning Authority operates". Indeed, it has occurred now, after the Stein inquiry; but I must say that Mr Wood had already put some things into place to begin those changes.

Mr Speaker, community groups, through this action of the Government, have been sent a very clear message. We have a responsibility, as members of this Assembly, to say to community groups, "It is all right. The Government might lose it, the former Deputy Chief Minister might lose it, the Chief Minister might lose it; but this Assembly is still the prime body in this Territory". If we believe that the community is being dealt with very badly and we have the power to take some action, we should take that action. We do have the power, thanks to the motion put up by Ms Tucker. We should use our power to take that action and send the right message back to members of the community.

MR WOOD (5.20): Mr Speaker, the arguments in this debate have focused on claims of intimidation or bullying. Let us talk about that. The Chief Minister may be guilty as charged, but she is not alone. In fact, compared with some, she is an amateur. While I support the motion, there is a strong element of hypocrisy in it. Consider the intimidation of some members of this Assembly, the vitriolic abuse of anyone here or beyond the chamber who dares to disagree with some in the community, including a person aggrieved in this case. If we are to speak against intimidation, let us be consistent and do so in all circumstances. Do not let the pot call the kettle black.

It is the case that as a member of the Assembly I expect and tolerate trenchant, even unjustified, criticism. As is often shown, the rules are different for politicians. They are much more harsh, and that is especially the case for Ministers and governments. We are expected to be better than others who do not have our responsibility. We do have to work to a higher standard and to a higher tolerance, and that is where the Government and the Chief Minister have erred.

In two cases of concern to the Opposition the Government has not acted in accordance with those requirements, and this motion is justified. Mr Bert Tolley is a dedicated union official who works hard in the interests of his members. He was, until recently, also a dedicated member of the board of Totalcare who worked hard in the interests of

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