Page 2529 - Week 09 - Wednesday, 7 August 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
issue here. The point at issue is who determines the proceedings in this house. We have processes in place in accordance with our standing orders. Mr Stevenson has the advantage of those, just as any other private member of the Assembly does, in terms of private members' business. As Mr Berry has pointed out, he could not convince the members of this Assembly who determine the course of private members' business that his business should take precedence over that of other people.
Mr Jensen: The Administration and Procedures Committee, Mr Kaine; there is a difference.
Mr Collaery: Not the Assembly.
MR KAINE: The members of this committee are members of this Assembly; they are entitled to have a view, and the process is that those members who are elected by this Assembly will determine the course of private members' business. He could not convince them that his business should take precedence over everybody else's in terms of the two hours that are devoted today to private members' business.
Mr Stevenson is not prepared to accept the decision of his peers on this issue. He believes that he somehow takes precedence over all of the other members of this Assembly. Dr Kinloch sprung to his aid this morning and moved a motion that we stop debating the subject that was then under debate and consideration before the house and set it aside in favour of Mr Stevenson. Thirteen members out of 17 sitting in this house voted against that proposition. In other words, 13 members of this house believe that the processes of determining the sequence of private members' business are the right and proper ones.
I do not believe that we should set all that aside because Mr Stevenson thinks we should. He is a single member of this Assembly, just as each of the rest of us is. He belongs to this Assembly. He should subscribe to the standing orders, although I know that he does not because his objective is to abolish this place. So, why he chooses to try to exploit the standing orders and the processes of this place to his own advantage is absolutely beyond me.
If he thinks it ought to be abolished and if he is going to continue to try to manipulate the place, my only suggestion is that he should take himself somewhere else and do it. He should not try to impose his will on the majority of the members of this Assembly or the whole community of this Territory. He has to abide by the rules, the same as the rest of us do. For that reason, I oppose his motion, although he well knows that I do not oppose the substance of his Bill and that when it comes before the house I will vote for it. But he has to take his turn, as everybody else does.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .