Page 4953 - Week 17 - Tuesday, 11 December 1990
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Mr Deputy Speaker, when the Speaker, himself, made his statement earlier today and decided that he considered my conduct to be equivalent to Dr Kinloch's, and then a very short time after that put me on warning, I considered his conduct to be appalling. I consider that for the Speaker to move this situation away from the conduct of Dr Kinloch and move it to me was totally inappropriate and inept.
The reality of the situation was that, had the Speaker named Dr Kinloch, he knew that the leader of Government business would never have put the motion forward and that, in effect, would have been a vote of no confidence in him. He was put in the unenviable position that he would not have had the support of the Government when he named somebody, independent of what Dr Kinloch could have done, and would have done, because Mr Collaery would have looked after his own.
That is the problem with the Government. That is why its members have failed to maintain the dignity of the Assembly. That is the problem we have here, because they are more concerned - as this Alliance Government always has been concerned - about self-interest long before they are interested in anything else, and that applies to almost every member of that Alliance Government - - -
Mr Collaery: Are you going to pay your Rally debt?
MR MOORE: Each of those individual people is involved in self-interest, and self-interest only. Mr Collaery interjects, "Are you going to pay your Rally debt?". I have said to Mr Collaery before, and I will say it again: if he thinks I owe the Rally some money, he ought take me to court and I will defend it there.
MR DEPUTY SPEAKER: Members, the time for the discussion has now expired.
ADMINISTRATION AND PROCEDURES - STANDING COMMITTEE
Alteration of Reporting Date
MR PROWSE (4.46), by leave: I move:
That the resolution of the Assembly of 19 September 1990 concerning a proposed Standing Committee on Ethics be amended by omitting "by 11 December 1990" and substituting "by 1 May 1991".
I would just like to make the point that, simply through pressure of work, more time is required by the members' staff who are analysing the data - and there is a large amount of it. Before the Assembly takes a view on this matter, we believe that we should investigate it in an appropriate manner, and we seek the extra time to do so.
Question resolved in the affirmative.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .