Page 866 - Week 03 - Wednesday, 13 March 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Mr Connolly: I take a point of order. Mr Speaker, at the opening of Mr Moore's remarks he referred to 1989, when Mr Collaery was in a put up or shut up situation in a similar matter and he was given considerable latitude. At a number of points, I notice in the transcript, members objected to irrelevance and he was given considerable latitude to proceed. I would have thought that that may be a precedent that would apply here. It is from page 746 onwards of the Hansard. At various points irrelevance was taken as a point but not accepted.
MR SPEAKER: I must also advise members that some leniency when answering a question such as this is allowable - some deviation from the course - but I am asking Mr Moore to not cloud the issue. I am afraid that this is what could develop.
Mr Collaery: Mr Speaker, the motion calls upon Mr Moore to name the alleged Minister or Ministers and to provide the date or dates of any alleged meeting. Mr Speaker, I submit that he should start with that and make his explanations afterwards. That is what he has been given leave to do and that clearly is your ruling.
Mr Moore: Mr Speaker, perhaps I can explain my intention. That might help resolve the problem. Mr Speaker, I have some difficulty in presenting the evidence which I am prepared to present, but I feel it is appropriate that I draw some comparisons to precedent, to previous circumstances, in order to explain why I have taken the approach that I have taken. I feel, Mr Speaker, to explain it afterwards, there is the risk that the house will not give me leave. It only requires one person not to give leave. I am not prepared to be put in that situation, Mr Speaker. I have a relatively short speech. It is certainly nothing like the seven hours that Mr Collaery went through on 6 July 1989. You can see the length of the speech, Mr Speaker; it is double spaced. It is only a matter of half a dozen pages or so. I believe that it is quite appropriate, Mr Speaker, for me to respond. When the house is forcing me to respond in a way that I had not intended, I think that there is - - -
Mr Humphries: I take a point of order.
MR SPEAKER: This is a point of order, Mr Humphries.
Mr Moore: I think it is quite appropriate under such circumstances, Mr Speaker, to allow me to proceed, briefly, in the way that I intend to respond, especially considering that I was given leave to respond to the motion, not to respond in any specific way. I intend to respond to the motion. It is a quite normal process - Hector Kinloch, I am sure, would verify this - in academic circles and other circles, in writing and in speech writing, to lead to a climax, Mr Speaker, and then to fall off into the denouement. That is the way the argument should run, and that is the way I have prepared it.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .