Page 4873 - Week 16 - Thursday, 29 November 1990
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
to Mr Bill Wood. It is also a credit to our Government in acknowledging and accepting that Mr Bill Wood is subject to caucus control, yet we do not make these inferential allegations, that there is some - - -
Mrs Grassby: He is not a Minister; that is the difference.
MR COLLAERY: Neither is Mr Jensen a Minister.
Mrs Grassby: He is an Executive Deputy, which is the same thing. He speaks on behalf of the Minister.
MR SPEAKER: Order, Mrs Grassby, please!
MR COLLAERY: Through you, Mr Speaker: Mr Bill Wood is probably more tightly controlled than Mr Jensen, although he is well disciplined.
MR MOORE (5.17): Mr Speaker, I welcome the interjection from the Chief Minister that this problem could well be fixed shortly. I can remember a situation in the Estimates Committee when Mr Jensen clearly had had access to information that others of us had not. It had nothing to do with the Estimates Committee, let me hasten to add, and in no way do I reflect on Mr Jensen in this statement. But the point is that in his position as Executive Deputy he has access to information on behalf of the Government, particularly in his role as Executive Deputy for planning. I think that it is most important that this problem be resolved as quickly as possible, mainly because I feel that the one area in relation to which this Assembly has had very little flak and in which it has shown itself to be most responsible is that of committees. I am very keen to see that it continues that way.
The report that came down on front fences can easily be construed as a report of two Government backbenchers.
Mr Kaine: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I thought the report that we were considering was called the "Feasibility of Renaming Rhodes Place". I think that the debate is running a bit away from the subject matter.
MR MOORE: No; part of that report, Mr Speaker, includes additional comments by Mr Berry, and they refer specifically to this matter. I think it is quite appropriate to comment on anything in the report.
MR SPEAKER: Please proceed.
MR MOORE: The front fences issue, as part of the inquiries of the Standing Committee on Planning, Development and Infrastructure, can easily be construed as a report of a couple of Government backbenchers. I for one would be delighted to criticise that report. However, one thing that has not happened at this stage - I think it is very fortunate, but I think it is only a matter of time - is the committee structure coming into disrepute through that. I
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .