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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 1 Hansard (20 February) . . Page.. 288 ..

MR WHITECROSS: Thank you, Mr Speaker. On Tuesday I asked the Chief Minister a question. In light of her apology to Ms Rees, I asked her to explain the real reason why she sacked Ms Rees from the board, given that the reason that was set out in her letter to the Conservation Council had been withdrawn. In answering my question, Mrs Carnell did not take the opportunity to clarify the record; Mrs Carnell did not take the opportunity to set the record straight. Instead, Mrs Carnell took the opportunity, under parliamentary privilege, to repeat the allegations she had previously apologised for and to defame Ms Rees some more. That is what she did. That is the kind of arrogance that we are forced to confront by this motion today.

Mr Speaker, I can go further. When this issue first came up last year, Mr Moore came to me and said, "I am very angry about this. I would like to move a no-confidence motion in Mr De Domenico on the spot". We talked about it. I said, "I am very reluctant to vote for a no-confidence motion today", the day after the letter came out.

Mr Moore: It was supposed to arrive after the sitting finished.

MR WHITECROSS: Unfortunately, the mail was unusually good that week. I said to Mr Moore, "I think that the Government ought to be given a chance to explain. Before we move on this issue, the Government ought to be given a chance to respond to our concerns about the manner of this sacking from the board".

Mr Moore: Which I told you I thought was wimping out; nevertheless.

MR SPEAKER: Order! I will not allow interjections. I will not allow cross-chamber discussion either.

MR WHITECROSS: You are very selective, Mr Speaker, but I accept your ruling. Mr Moore thought I was wimping out; I thought I was giving the Government a reasonable chance. I spoke to Mrs Carnell and to Mr De Domenico. I said, "The reasons set out in your letter for sacking Ms Rees from this board are not good enough. You are going to have to do better than that". They have not. They have had plenty of time. They had an opportunity on Tuesday in question time. The very first question I asked gave Mrs Carnell an opportunity, and she did not take it. Instead, she abused parliamentary privilege to attack Ms Rees some more. That is why we find ourselves in the position of supporting this motion today.

Mr Speaker, in the few moments remaining to me I want to touch on two allegations that were made by Mrs Carnell today further attacking Ms Rees's integrity. I think I should take the opportunity to put an alternative view on the record. One was the suggestion that there was something improper about Ms Rees's failure to declare that she had done work for the AMP. Ms Rees was a consultant to the AMP, advising them on Federal privacy legislation - a matter which has absolutely no relationship to any of the activities of the Interim Kingston Foreshore Development Authority. Whatever Mrs Carnell's concerns about the matter, she cannot describe that as a conflict of interest; it is a matter completely unrelated to her work on the Interim Kingston Foreshore Development Authority board.

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