Page 4946 - Week 17 - Tuesday, 11 December 1990
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
of Government business; but it had nothing to do with Mr Humphries. So, why is it that they have started to complain? Of course, that was typical of Mr Humphries' approach anyway - an off-the-cuff, quick approach to something; just do it now. No wonder his education planning is also in such a mess.
The second failure was that of managing what happens here. Their incompetence led to a crisis in this chamber, and having manufactured that crisis they simply could not handle it. It got worse and worse. Mr Collaery, in a panic, ordered those few remaining members of the Alliance Government out of the house; of course, that only confounded the problem and eventually they had to come creeping back in again. They left the mess to the Speaker. In subsequent media interviews he made it clear that the fault was not his. The disorder we got into in this chamber, the failure of the Government, had nothing to do with him. It was not his fault, and he gave the Chief Minister and other Ministers quite a serve because of the very difficult situation that he had been left in.
Mr Collaery: Why is your motion against the Speaker?
MR WOOD: I will tell you. It is no good the Speaker simply blaming the Government, because he did not respond at all adequately in that debate. Making a ruling and then changing the ruling under some pressure from the Government did not enhance the Speaker's image either. So, he is joined in the proposed censure motion that we have.
The third failure - - -
Mr Jensen: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I seem to recall that I just heard Mr Wood indicate that some pressure was put on the Speaker by the Government. That is a clear imputation. I request that that be withdrawn.
MR SPEAKER: I will check Hansard and review that. I cannot remember what Mr Wood said then. Please proceed, Mr Wood.
MR WOOD: You might take this point, Mr Jensen: who was it who suggested to the Speaker that he should change the ruling that he had already made? It did not come from this side of the house. If you do not call that pressure, well, I do not know what is.
The third failing was that of conduct, the conduct of all the members on that side of the house, and that includes those members who were not here, those who were flying away or had gone off - at least for a short time - to a function somewhere or other, because by removing themselves from this parliament at a time while it was still in session they were showing great disrespect for the parliament, and that was, in itself, a lowering of the dignity of the parliament. Of course, we also have the failure of conduct of Dr Kinloch, who set a standard that I am sure he will not want to repeat. Yet in the actions today, with the
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .