Page 3115 - Week 14 - Thursday, 7 December 1989
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
virtually every opportunity that they requested. Never once - - -
Mr Collaery: On a point of order, Mr Speaker; I have listened to the member opposite, and again, Mr Speaker, under standing order 62, he has completed a total re-rendition for about the thirtieth or fortieth time of the very same phraseology, the very same statements.
MR SPEAKER: Thank you, Mr Collaery. I believe he was making a concluding statement.
Mr Jensen: Mr Speaker, in accordance with standing order 70, I move that the motion now be put.
Mrs Grassby: Another gag!
MR WHALAN: Just when I was in the middle of my argument.
MR SPEAKER: Order, order! Mr Jensen, please listen. Temporary and standing orders have been suspended to allow Mr Whalan to proceed as long as he may wish.
MR WHALAN: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I do appreciate that. I will just go back, as I was in the middle of making a very important point. Mr Speaker, this particular issue is fundamental. That is right; I know what I was saying. Not once, Mr Speaker, when we were in government did we apply the gag. I think that is a very, very important point to remember. Not once did the Follett Government apply the gag, attempt to apply the gag. Yet the very first motion on the very first day moved by this new fledgling Chief Minister is a motion to gag debate, to gag democracy within this chamber. We have seen, now, a further attempt by Mr Jensen to attempt to gag my democratic right to speak and address this Assembly on this very important motion which is before the Assembly now.
So this, then, is the sort of democracy that we can expect, and this is the reason why, of course, there was no sitting yesterday. We sought to have the Assembly sit yesterday so that private members' business could be discussed. We had already been given a clear indication that, if the Government was not prepared yesterday to face question time, they could have moved the adjournment and scuttled away.
They could have adjourned the debate and scuttled away, but they were not even prepared to give private members the right, the democratic right, to discuss the important issues. Of course, the reason why they did not want private members to have that democratic right was that they knew that within the business which was the agenda for private members were motions that would rip them apart. The divisions in the gang of 10 would be so apparent.
Mr Speaker, look at the situation, for example, on the casinos. They are terrified about having the divisions
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .