Page 2821 - Week 13 - Wednesday, 22 November 1989
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
It is quite clear that the effect of Mr Kaine's motion will be that we are able to debate Mr Moore's motion in the context of the debate of the Government's own package of environmental, heritage and planning laws. That is entirely appropriate. I see no reason to bring this particular component forward and slot it into place now in a way which is simply not going to be compatible with a debate on the entire package in a proper fashion.
When we talk about the gag, let me say that Minister Berry was across on this side of the chamber only a few minutes ago suggesting that a gag might be applied to Mr Stevenson later this morning when we come to debate his proposal concerning the UN convention on the rights of the child. When is a gag applicable and when is it not, Minister Berry? Why is a gag right against Mr Stevenson but not against other members of the Assembly?
Mr Stevenson: A special case.
MR HUMPHRIES: A special case, apparently.
MR MOORE (11.10): In fact, I suggested to Mr Kaine that it might be appropriate for him to move an adjournment to this debate. The reason I suggested that was that Mr Humphries in his speech last week said that the Liberals had some problems. They agreed in principle with the concept, but they had some problems, particularly with an advisory council as opposed to an authority with teeth. I said, "Well, that is all right. We have a week to negotiate, it will be adjourned and therefore we can discuss it this week". The simple fact of the matter was that they did not get back to me on what their ideas were and we did not get a chance to discuss it. With that in mind, I suggested that the way to deal with it, because it has been a particularly busy week, was to allow the adjournment to go ahead, I presumed, for the next sitting. Then Mr Kaine springs on the additional bit, which is what we are now speaking to, suspending standing orders in order to make the debate cognate with the whole planning issue.
What has happened since then is that we have had this ridiculous tirade from Mr Collaery, in spite of the fact that I have spent a number of hours with Tony Fleming, who is of course a very prominent conservationist, and he assisted me in preparing this motion. So the sort of nonsense that Mr Collaery comes out with in his sort of weird interpretation of his own planning policy is highly questionable. Of course, now I do not have the chance of reply to those ridiculous notions.
However, the point I am trying to make is that to suspend this until the next sitting is one question, but to suspend it until the planning legislation comes in is an entirely different thing. It would be appropriate for a council like this to be tried. Perhaps it would be found to not work, but at least it would have had a chance. With that
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .