Page 402 - Week 02 - Tuesday, 19 February 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
that David Simmons has done in the move towards transferring powers to this parliament. I think that, for some inexplicable reason, over the last 24 hours there has been a change in the strategy; but I am absolutely convinced - I have spoken to Mr Simmons on this and other subjects many times over the last year - that he is committed to transferring to this Assembly powers which he believes we should rightfully have, and he has made that quite clear. Now he has changed his strategy and I have not had a chance to talk to him so I do not know why that is so.
But I think that it would be a major mistake for us here to be critical of that Minister who is doing the best that he can in very difficult circumstances to accede to the requests that we have made. I am not going to engage in inter-party politics, because I think that would be a mistake. I believe that Mr Simmons' heart is in the right place when he is explaining why he is doing what he is doing and the steps that he is taking, which can only in the long term be to our benefit. So let us concentrate on the issue that is before us; let us concentrate on the motives and the objectives of the man who is attempting to get this thing straightened out.
I imagine that for David Simmons to arrive at some sort of consensus within the national Parliament on what should be done must be very difficult. We know that the debate has raged in the past. We know that two or three years ago we got a compromise outcome that is unsatisfactory. He is now trying to reach a new consensus, a new compromise. It may not go as far as we would like it to go, but I accept that he is moving in the right direction and that he is doing the best that he can. I support this referendum, but he obviously has a strategy that he has devised in order to further the interests of this body and I think we should support that.
I have some questions in my mind about the proposition put forward by Mr Connolly. If it is in his mind to transfer responsibility to this Assembly, the same sort of responsibility that any other State parliament has, then I do not know what the justification is for deferring that. I do not agree with Mr Connolly's proposition. The argument that this Government, on this side of the house, somehow does not have a mandate simply does not wash. To argue that we should postpone this decision until some future time when some other parliament sits here is a spurious claim.
Mr Berry: Tell us what it is. Just tell us what it is.
Mr Collaery: Did you have a mandate when you were in government?
Mr Berry: My word. It was very clear.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .