Page 2543 - Week 12 - Wednesday, 15 November 1989
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
they can at me or anyone else who gets in the way of their dream of government at any cost. It is unfortunate that the agent of revenge on this occasion should be Norm Jensen, who stands as the main barrier to Bernard Collaery's asphyxiating grip on the party. I was always prepared to credit Mr Jensen with more sense, and I believe that many who will remain with the Rally until their subscriptions fall due feel the same way.
The second explanation is more disturbing because of what it suggests about the Rally's attitude to the Assembly and its procedures. As Mr Jensen has already reminded members, I ran into a few problems, only a fortnight ago, over a press release criticising a decision of the committee. Mr Jensen's revisionist history of such recent events is no doubt intentional - as intentional as it is inaccurate. What certain members of this Assembly took exception to was that inferences were drawn suggesting - - -
Mr Kaine: On a point of order, Mr Speaker; I thought we were speaking on and debating a question of membership of committees, not the history and the difficulties that Mr Moore has had with the Residents Rally. Could he be asked to stick to the point? I do not want to hear about his problems with the Rally.
MR SPEAKER: Please get to the point, Mr Moore.
MR MOORE: Mr Speaker, it is not just a case of membership of something, but it is the removal of my position from the committee. That has some ramifications to do with the attitude of the Residents Rally and why this motion is there, so I shall continue.
MR SPEAKER: Order! Mr Moore, the point is that logic was presented as the reason for your removal. I believe that really the internal machinations of parties are not the issue, so would you stick more to that point.
MR MOORE: What I am now talking about are the committees, Mr Speaker, and that, I think, is quite appropriate. The inference has been drawn that I had challenged the integrity of the committee in question. The motion put it slightly differently, referring to the "inferences" contained in my press release. That was a solecism which no doubt Mr Duby committed in the heat of the moment. An inference, as we all know, is something a reader finds, and I cannot really be held accountable for inferences drawn by others. The press release certainly contained no "implication", which is, I suppose, what was meant. I did not pass any judgment, adverse or otherwise, on the integrity or objectivity of the committee.
I have complete faith in the committee system. I have complete faith that every member of this Assembly will do his or her best to strike a balance between the policy objectives they adhere to and the evidence they are presented with. I accept that everyone will strive for
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .