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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 1 Hansard (20 February) . . Page.. 271 ..

MR WOOD (continuing):

the company and for the ACT community. He worked effectively, for Totalcare has doubled its operations. There seems little doubt that Mr Tolley was sacked from the board because of his union activity.

Mrs Carnell: He was not sacked.

MR WOOD: No; well, he was not reappointed, no matter that he was a good, loyal and effective member of the Totalcare board.

Mrs Carnell: He is now on a consultative committee, and a paid member of it, for Totalcare.

MR WOOD: Thank you for that. Somewhat similar circumstances prevailed in the dismissal of Jacqui Rees. There is much that she has done and much that she can contribute to the consultative process. The Chief Minister has detailed her reasons for that dismissal: That Jacqui Rees has persistently made allegations about the probity of ACT bureaucrats. But those allegations have been made for a long time, certainly before her appointment to the Interim Kingston Foreshore Development Authority. If it was appropriate to make that appointment in the first place, it was as appropriate to maintain it. Nothing had changed. In these two instances, as in others, the Government has acted inappropriately. Hence this debate.

MR HUMPHRIES (Attorney-General) (5.23): Mr Speaker, I do not want to say a great deal more beyond what I have said in the matter of public importance debate; but I want to make one point, and that is that the Government, as is clear from the comments made already by Ministers here, stands by the decision that was made by Mr De Domenico in respect of Ms Rees. It is clear from the evidence tabled by the Chief Minister that we have a very extensive process of community consultation at work in this community. It may not be the view of members of the crossbenches, at least, that that is the case; but the fact is that there is an extensive process of community consultation at work there. It is a very effective process. I believe that it is certainly more extensive and effective than any previously engineered process of consultation within the ACT. Indeed, I understand that the groups that spoke to the Chief Minister a few days ago, who were used as the springboard for some attack on the Government recently, admitted that the depth and extent of consultation was greater than it has been before.

Obviously, the decision to remove Ms Rees from the Interim Kingston Foreshore Development Authority has struck a nerve and rankled with members of the crossbenches and the Opposition. I want to make one thing entirely clear at this point in time. This motion calls on the Government to urgently restore community confidence, blah, blah, and to reinstate Ms Rees. The Government will not be doing that on the basis of a call to do so. The Government stands by the decision it took in respect of that matter. I would urge those who are scribbling amendments to the motion, if they believe that the Government should be forced to do this, to draft an amendment now to require the Government to do those things, if they wish to do that, because we do not intend to take a mere call on the Government as a basis for changing our response. If the Assembly is going to impose its view on the Government it is going to have to be seen to do so, and the precedent which will be set will be one which, from time to time, I think, will come back to haunt at least the alternative government which sits over there.

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