Page 2545 - Week 12 - Wednesday, 15 November 1989
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MR MOORE: That is what I am talking about. Mr Jensen is saying, is he not, that the Rally cannot trust me? So much for the integrity and objectivity of the committee system. It depends, as far as the Rally is concerned, on having someone on it with their brand of ideological purity or loyalty to chase whatever the Rally demands. If this motion does not merely come out of spite or petulance, Mr Jensen is saying, in effect, that his party wants someone on this committee that can push things in the Rally's direction. He is saying that my objectivity is not Rally oriented enough for his liking. He is saying that I might also pervert the committee's deliberations to such an extent that the other members will reach conclusions which will not be to the Rally's taste because Mr Jensen and his colleagues suspect me of bearing the same kind of ill will towards them as they apparently bear towards me.
This is a direct affront to my integrity, more so because of a discussion I had with Dr Kinloch the very day before this motion was first presented. It is also a direct affront to the integrity of the other members of the committee. I am forced to say, "So much for the Rally's view of the committee system".
You may wonder, Mr Speaker, what is so vital in the work of the committee that I cannot be trusted to participate in it. Since we are talking about a cultural affairs committee, surely it must be the Rally's arts policy which contains something so fundamental and important for the future of Canberra. I wish I could say it was. Despite my best efforts and the efforts of other Rally members, that document is little more than empty pieties and meaningless rhetoric. It contains no great challenges. Indeed, some would say it contains no challenges at all. So it cannot be that.
But the only other factor involved, although it is no more than tangential to the committee's main function, is the casino. Yet here we have Dr Kinloch being put forward as my replacement. It is surely not the same Dr Kinloch who has been so vigorous - I do not think he will mind if I say "implacable" - in his opposition to the casino, as vigorous and implacable as I have been in fighting for the rights of inner city residents. Surely it is not the same Dr Kinloch who was so diligent in avoiding a nomination for the original casino committee, and I give credit to him. It is surely not the same Dr Kinloch who was, not so long ago, canvassing opinions about the propriety of Mr Stevenson remaining on the Social Policy Committee while he considered the fluoride issue which he is so passionately involved in.
If they want me off the committee and Dr Kinloch on it, what can the Rally hope to gain? Since they have no arts policy for me to differ with, they can only suspect me of intending to depart from the Rally orthodoxy on the casino issue. So it is the same Dr Kinloch. We may well wonder
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .