Page 3604 - Week 14 - Tuesday, 8 December 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Mr De Domenico: There has been no rush. It has been there for about 18 months.
MR MOORE: Mr De Domenico interjects that it has been there for around 18 months. The question is: Why was there a need to have this resolved in such a way? If my memory serves me correctly, this is the first time since the inception of this Assembly under self-government - the first time in the First Assembly or the Second Assembly - that a committee report has come down separate from a dissenting report. What is the rush? Madam Speaker, I think it is a perfectly reasonable question to ask. Members must be wondering what is going on in a committee that decides to report in two separate stages.
Mr De Domenico: On a point of order, Madam Speaker: Mr Moore is once again implying that there is something in the fact that the reports came in at different times. I ask him to withdraw those remarks. If he continues to do that, we will stand up and continue to ask him to withdraw.
MR MOORE: Madam Speaker, there is no imputation there. I simply said that the report was given to you on Friday and now we have the dissenting report. Mr Lamont himself said that Ms Szuty would table hers - - -
Mr Lamont: There was agreement by all of the members of the committee that this would be the process.
MR MOORE: There was a discussion about being able to provide a dissenting report within 15 minutes. It is very strange, Madam Speaker. I have to ask: What is the rush?
MADAM SPEAKER: The motion - - -
MR MOORE: Madam Speaker, I was just sitting down while Mr De Domenico raised a point of order, and I responded to that point of order. Can I now continue with my speech?
MADAM SPEAKER: It is customary for me to respond to points of order, Mr Moore, and I thought that - - -
MR MOORE: With your indulgence, Madam Speaker, it is also quite customary for other members to comment on a point of order. You have been tolerant enough to allow that on many occasions, Madam Speaker.
MADAM SPEAKER: I have become a little bewildered by it all; but, Mr Moore, I would caution you again on the provisions of standing order 55. Please continue.
MR MOORE: I am quite happy to be cautioned on that, Madam Speaker. The question that I now raise is: Why do we have this strange format where the report is tabled with you without the dissenting report? I presume that, once it had been tabled with you, Madam Speaker, it was then your prerogative to make it public. Therefore, we had a situation where a report could have been made public without the dissenting report being attached. I would have thought that such a situation would not be in the best interests of presenting a broad point of view. It is interesting that it should arise over a variation which had been before the Standing Committee on Planning, Development and Infrastructure for such a short time before the report was presented. In respect of this particular variation, the question still remains: What was the rush?
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .