Page 1950 - Week 06 - Thursday, 2 May 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
I would like us to draw this kind of talk to a close. This must be the fourth or fifth time we have dealt with this. Can I please ask that our committee system be properly honoured by all members present, including members of the Labor Party, who seem reluctant to take part. Truly, it would have been so helpful if Mr Berry and Mr Moore had been there for the joint meeting. You have only to discuss with the four of us what took place in producing that report to realise that there was no single line, that we were arguing our own cases independently. We had some fairly severe arguments, and you can see that in the report. Similarly, from any other committee on which I have been it seems very obvious that the committee system allows a degree of independence that is very hard to find in any other part of the Assembly.
MR DUBY (Minister for Finance and Urban Services) (4.09), in reply: I am so pleased that the rest of the members of this Assembly support my motion of referral of the 1991-92 capital works program to the Standing Committee on Planning, Development and Infrastructure. During the debate I have not heard one speaker oppose that motion.
We have heard a lot of superfluous matters, however, and when I say "superfluous" I mean superfluous. They really had no bearing whatsoever on the motion that I presented to this Assembly. But there were a few things that were said during the debate which I think need to be addressed. The question that was put very well by Mr Humphries concerned the situation that occurred, under the Labor Government, with Mr Wood. We heard the story, which is quite remarkable when you think about it, that Mr Wood, who was the government chair of some committees, attended Cabinet meetings and also contributed to Cabinet discussions.
Mr Moore: He was never the public face of both.
Mr Berry: He was never the public face of both.
MR DUBY: I hear voices from the other side of the house, saying that he never represented himself as the public face of the Government on an issue. That is a very interesting statement. Can we get that one again - Mr Wood never represented himself as the public face of the Government? That is very interesting. Did Bill Wood sign letters on behalf of the then Chief Minister?
Mrs Grassby: No, never.
Ms Follett: He certainly did not.
MR DUBY: That is not our belief. Did Bill Wood represent the Chief Minister on occasions? We, at the time in opposition, did not see anything remarkably incorrect in those attitudes; but they certainly make some of the arguments that we are hearing from that side today, and have heard in the past, appear, as I said, superfluous.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .