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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 1 Hansard (20 February) . . Page.. 263 ..

MS TUCKER (continuing):

It is important that this motion be moved and that members of this place have an opportunity to make quite clear their feelings on this topic. The debate obviously is not finished and other members, I believe, want to speak as well. I am pretty amazed by the level of the debate that has occurred so far on the matter of public importance. I cannot believe that such an attack could occur on a community person under the privilege of this place. There is the question, for example, of Ms Rees being employed by the AMP. The length of time that was devoted to that aspect and the outrage expressed by Mrs Carnell on this involvement by Ms Rees with the AMP was really quite scandalous.

Mrs Carnell: No; lack of disclosure. She can work for whoever she wants.

MS TUCKER: Maybe Ms Rees did overlook making that clear, but it is quite understandable why. I think it would have been very good if you had mentioned that she was dealing with Federal privacy legislation for the AMP. She could see no connection with that. If that was an oversight, well, it was an oversight; but there was no reason to make that kind of vindictive attack on her. Maybe you were not aware of the work she was doing with the AMP and that is why you made the mistake of doing that. I hope that you will retract that particular aspect of the criticism.

I have also noticed that in this debate there has been a huge distinction made about the fact that the interim authority is a commercial board, a decision-making board, and therefore it is not appropriate that someone as vocal as Ms Rees should be on it. It is very hard to understand why you ever put Ms Rees on that board, because she is obviously vocal. She is obviously very passionate. She does speak strongly on issues. The outrage that you are displaying today is quite out of place in comparison with the normal behaviour in this place. I am very surprised that you could think you could even get away with it, to be honest.

It seems that people in the community are not allowed to feel angry and speak strongly on issues such as Ms Rees has spoken on. We have seen continual use of these newspaper clippings taken out of context. As Mr Moore has already gone through them, I will not bother. It is clear that there is very little substance in any of it. Even if there were, even if a community representative did dare to say something a little bit out of what you consider to be appropriate protocol, you do not sack someone for that. You might suggest that it is not appropriate, but they still have a right to make their own decisions about that. No wonder there is a perception out there that this Government is extremely autocratic in its way of operating. I will not continue to speak on this, because I think other members want an opportunity to speak. I have already said what I think, but I will close the debate later.

MR MOORE (4.59): I am glad to have this opportunity to continue dealing with some of the issues. Mr Speaker, it is a great shame that this Government has decided to present supposed evidence to this Assembly and then argue that the evidence is a good reason to blacken somebody's character by using their own words and then just slightly twisting them. What we have seen from this Government for quite some time is this ability - - -

Debate interrupted.

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