Page 3686 - Week 13 - Tuesday, 15 October 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MR KAINE (Leader of the Opposition) (4.19): I have listened attentively to Mr Berry, and I have some sympathy for his view. I notice also that Mr Duby is not here. Is a motion that is put to the Assembly invalidated simply because a member is not here at the time? I do not think that is a valid argument. I do not know whether Mr Moore has an interest in this matter or not. All I can say is that the matter has been floated for some time now. I do not sit in on the Administration and Procedures Committee, but it is not news to me that it was intended that the committee be expanded. I guess that that has been discussed pretty widely. It should not be news to anybody that this motion has been brought forward.
I do not feel very strongly about it one way or another, but I must confess to being a little surprised that Mr Berry takes the view that there is something improper about it because Mr Moore is not here. I do not accept that for a minute, and I do not think anybody else does either; nor do I accept that it is improper to proceed with such a motion because one member of the Assembly is not on the floor. If Mr Moore wants to be here and to debate these matters, then that is open to him. He cannot complain that business of the Assembly proceeds in his absence if he does not want to be on the floor.
As I say, I am ambivalent; but I am not particularly persuaded by Mr Berry's argument that the matter should not go ahead, first of all, because it is news to everybody, which it is not, and, secondly, because Mr Moore is not here, which in my view is totally irrelevant.
MR HUMPHRIES (4.21): I move:
That the words after "Mr Collaery" be omitted and replaced with "and Mr Stefaniak be appointed to and Mrs Nolan be removed from the committee".
I consider that this matter has been debated informally at some length, prior to today, among the members of the Assembly. I imagined that there was broad agreement to the idea of changing the membership of the Administration and Procedures Committee, and the detail is now apparent in the motion and the amendment we are debating. Presumably, it is the function of this Assembly to debate motions of this kind.
I think the argument for admitting Mr Collaery to the committee is quite substantial. I cannot see any reason why a party which has three members on the floor of this Assembly ought not to have membership of the Administration and Procedures Committee. I am quite happy to support the thrust of the original motion. With respect, I think it is appropriate for the Liberal Party, as the second largest party now on the floor of the Assembly, to have a representative - - -
Mr Connolly: For the moment.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .