Page 1022 - Week 04 - Wednesday, 28 March 1990
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MR MOORE: The Chief Minister says he was not warned; that may be correct. I withdraw that statement if that was not the case, but certainly he interjected and his attention was drawn to that on many occasions. At this stage I just want to say that it would be a far greater thing for us now to forgive than to condemn. With that in mind, I think that the message has got through to Mr Whalan clearly. I believe that it is appropriate for the Assembly now to exercise its ability to extend a little bit of forgiveness in an attempt to make the house work in a better and more reasonable fashion. Therefore, I commend this motion to the Assembly.
MR HUMPHRIES (Minister for Health, Education and the Arts) (3.08): I oppose Mr Moore's motion. Mr Moore says that he is confident Mr Whalan is contrite. I have no evidence of that, and I, for one, am not convinced that Mr Whalan will not repeat these offences if the full penalty provided for in the standing orders is not enforced. The fact is, Mr Speaker, back in May last year we all came to this Assembly as new members and we were all given a set of standing orders to vote upon. The standing orders clearly indicate that the Assembly has the power to suspend members for disorderly conduct.
Mr Moore: Do judges always use their full power to sentence?
MR HUMPHRIES: No, they do not always use it, but they do certainly provide for that power to be there, should they wish to use it. I recall that when this power was exercised once before, members opposite said that it was shameful to use it and that we should never suspend a member from the house. If they believe that and if Mr Moore believes what he said today, I cannot help wondering why this standing order is here. What is the point of having standing order 202? Surely it is there to do what it says it will do. It says that if any member has "persistently and wilfully obstructed the business of the Assembly" or commits offences outlined in paragraphs (b), (c), (d) or (e), that member may be named by the Speaker. That member is then suspended from the service of the Assembly by a motion of the Assembly. We have those standing orders for a purpose. If he does not believe that they are appropriate, Mr Moore should move that they be removed.
Mr Moore: No, it is not black and white.
MR HUMPHRIES: If Mr Moore believes that it should be there, that it is an appropriate standing order, I cannot see why Mr Whalan should not be subject to that standing order.
Mr Moore: What about the standing order on interjections?
MR HUMPHRIES: Well, Mr Moore, there are straws that break the camel's back. I think you are as well aware as I am
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .