Page 500 - Week 02 - Thursday, 25 February 1993
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Mr Moore: I will explain that.
MR DE DOMENICO: You will explain that? Did you give me something in writing?
Mr Moore: Yes.
MR DE DOMENICO: When?
Mr Moore: I will explain it.
MR DE DOMENICO: I did not receive anything in writing from Mr Moore yesterday. The first thing in writing I got from Mr Moore was when he came to me this morning at 10.32 and showed me these pieces of paper. That is why the Liberal Party moved to adjourn the debate. That was the first time we had seen anything in writing.
MR MOORE (11.34), in reply: Madam Speaker, in one sense Mr De Domenico is correct in saying that he did not receive something in writing. I recall what happened. I wrote out the form of the motion, which the secretariat has changed to make it more workable and to put it into a more appropriate form. One of those I wrote with a fountain pen, and that is the one I can see now on Mr Lamont's desk. One I wrote with my black biro, as it so happened, and it is the one I had written with my black biro that I walked over to Mr De Domenico and put on his desk and said, "This is what we are intending to do". At that stage, my perception is that I had given Mr De Domenico a copy of this in writing, but I recall quite clearly that I took it back and handed that particular copy to the secretariat, and the motion was drawn from there.
For Mr De Domenico to say that he has not seen it in writing is inaccurate. For him to say that he has not been given it is quite correct. The point is that I very clearly discussed the matter with Mr De Domenico last night. I did not expect to get an answer last night because I would have expected him to take it to his party room - I have no difficulty with that; that is the process - as indeed I expected Labor to take it to their caucus. I spoke to various members of the Liberal Party last night and I had a quite long discussion on the matter with Mr Cornwell. That discussion included a discussion about his possible membership of the Standing Committee on Administration and Procedures. What has been presented here is another problem the Liberals have in their internal ranks in terms of how messages get back and forth and through. We have seen it demonstrated in this house before today. That is the first point I would like to make.
The second point I would like to deal with is standing order 221. Mr Humphries read that out, as he has done a number of times in this Assembly and in the previous Assembly, and the Assembly as a whole has seen Mr Humphries's interpretation of that standing order as incorrect. A precedent has been set. The interpretation of that standing order looks at that term "as nearly as practicable" as taking into account whether the committees will or will not work, and that is the most important thing.
Mr Humphries chairs the Legal Affairs Committee, which is due to report in April on a major reference that this Assembly has given to it. I pointed out last week that that committee had met only twice. Mrs Carnell said to me earlier that in fact it has now met three times. Madam Speaker, it will surprise me greatly if
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .