Page 44 - Week 02 - Tuesday, 23 May 1989
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
would have at least given the Assembly a week or two weeks to consider it, and at least to have created a committee.
If one thinks of the great traditions of the English parliament, the parliament of the United Kingdom, the parliaments in North America and of a whole number of dominions, one knows that when such a matter is introduced it is given weight, time and consideration. I have been an historian for 40 years. I sat here shocked to see that motion. I was shocked to see a situation in which a motion was suddenly put on the floor, discussed and a vote taken -woof! - all over by the end of the day.
I was shocked, historically shocked. If I have a chance ever again to speak to students about the events of that day, that is what I will describe to them. I was amazed. I believe that when the constitutional and legal judgment is made on this case, it will be seen quite clearly as the wrong, historically improper thing for the beginnings of this our Assembly.
More specifically, we clearly - 12 of us - could be described as having been on the opposition side, in that five people here were members of the government. I do all present of those 12 the courtesy of supposing that they were members of the opposition. We had no prior discussion, no prior meeting, no canvassing of opinions. We did not even have a chance to get to know each other, and that motion was put on the floor - woof! - debated and on we went.
We had this extraordinarily undemocratic manoeuvre to change the standing orders, in the presence of the Government, under peculiar circumstances. The Chief Minister rightly raises the question of precedent, and of course we had a problem with precedent. Might I suggest that there would have been another precedent. We could have declared ourselves a committee of the whole, the members of the Government could have left, and the members remaining as an opposition could have spent an hour, two hours, three hours, four hours if necessary, discussing the nature of that proposal and whether it was historically right and proper for that to proceed. I believe it was not.
I do not believe we should have looked to another body to elect the Leader of the Opposition. I think we should have looked to the opposition, whether on this floor, as a committee of the whole, or on the first floor or wherever we could have met, or in another building. The 12 of us should have met and discussed this matter. I am not involved here with ad hominem; I respect Bernard Collaery and Trevor Kaine as individuals in this Assembly. I ask that this be considered a very important historical matter.
MR MOORE (3.47): I would just like to reply to some of the points raised by the Chief Minister. In her speech, she started in with three main aspects. The first aspect was the legal aspect. Rather than debating that legal aspect
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .