Page 43 - Week 02 - Tuesday, 23 May 1989
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
to the Executive - it is an attack on me. I am getting heartily sick of it and I put Mr Collaery on notice that, if he continues this, what I have said today in connection with Mr Collaery's behaviour is the tip of the iceberg. If he is going to continue to throw the flak, he is going to continue to get it back, and he is going to get it back in larger measure than he throws it, because I, quite frankly, am heartily sick of it. If the three members that sit behind Mr Collaery have any integrity, and I know that they do - they have a great deal of respect from me because of the contribution that they are prepared to make to this Assembly - and if they follow their line of integrity, it will not be long before they disavow Mr Collaery in the attacks and insinuations that he is making.
DR KINLOCH (3.42): Mr Speaker, I rise in sorrow rather than in anger. It is a great old cliche that is very appropriate at this time. I listened to Mr Collaery's statements. They were not ad hominem; they were about an issue. I listened to Mr Kaine's comments, and they were ad hominem. I hope these ad hominem arguments in this chamber will cease.
Mr Kaine was not the object of this debate. The object of this debate was a matter of historical note. Indeed, Mr Kaine is an object of importance, as are all individuals, and each individual has his or her right to defend himself or herself, and there are proper times and places for that. We are all of importance. What we are discussing here is a matter of historical importance. What is important is the proper historical nature of this Assembly.
I noted the arguments of the Chief Minister, and I thought they were properly put; they were not put ad hominem. I do not agree with them, but we at least can address that. I would like to make a distinction between what is marginally possible by a narrow and partisan interpretation of the law - I think, wrongly - and what is historically proper.
I was very, very moved to be here on 11 May, on that wonderful day, when we opened this new legislature, this new parliament, this new branch of the traditions of Westminster and of other forms of democratic debate and discussion. It was a tremendous day. Most of that day was essentially ceremonial, if you like, or to get the processes under way. Then I was very, very sad indeed to discover that, out of the blue, without discussion, without any kind of prior arrangement with any of us, this motion was put forward to create an election of a leader of the opposition.
I understand the problems of precedent here. We had no precedents. We did, however, have a book of standing orders which we accepted for the nonce, and which in due time we can change. The very decent, proper and historical thing to have done, at the very least, would have been to have given notice of that motion, to take time over it. It
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .