Page 2357 - Week 11 - Wednesday, 1 November 1989
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
While there might have been reservations about that, I think there was sufficient tolerance within the Assembly to avoid taking any action against that person by way of suggesting that he not participate in the deliberations of the committee because of his very firmly held and publicly stated views. No-one has suggested that at all. What I am suggesting is that we will constantly find within the chamber people who hold views more vigorously than others and they will seek to speak on those views more strenuously than others. That is a fact of life.
I think that the reaction to Mr Moore's press release today - especially the second paragraph of this motion - is an overreaction. We are quite happy to support the first paragraph, which is a positive statement of the confidence we have in the way in which the committee has conducted its affairs, but we would submit that the second paragraph is an overreaction and is not consistent with the way in which we have allowed freedom and tolerated the views and expressions of other members of the Assembly on other issues on other occasions. I would add that I think that it might be counterproductive to adopt this resolution. It might be counterproductive in so far as it draws attention to something that people might otherwise prefer not to expose to publicity.
MR KAINE (Leader of the Opposition) (5.47): I will be brief because I think the matter ought to be dealt with quickly. I have some sympathy for the argument put forward by the Deputy Chief Minister, but I think that the thrust of his argument was in the wrong direction. What we have done before was always to sustain the concept of the integrity of the members of committees. That was the reason why, in the pursuance of the fluoride debate, some of us argued very strongly that it was the right of any member to sit on that committee, irrespective of his or her personal view. We were arguing in favour of the maintenance of the integrity of members who sit on committees.
I have only had a very quick look at this media release. It takes the opposite view. It questions the integrity of the members of this committee. It has not accepted the general proposition of this Assembly, that its members can act in an unbiased way on committees. It questions that concept. Quite frankly, Mr Speaker, I take offence at the fact that my integrity, in dealing with the matter of the Canberra Times site, is being questioned by a member of this house, and that is what that press release does. It asserts that somehow I have responded to my party machine. I did not even discuss that report, as it was being developed, with the members of my own party sitting here with me. I certainly did not discuss it with members of my party and I certainly did not take any directions from them. Nor, Mr Speaker, did I take any directions from the Chief Minister on the matter.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .