Page 1523 - Week 06 - Tuesday, 18 May 1993
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MR DE DOMENICO: That is right. I think that the names that Mr Moore mentioned were Mr Phillips, Mr Whalan, Mr Townsend and even Mr Dawkins. I believe that they are strong enough to look after themselves. But what also concerns me, as it did when Mr Phillips's son picked up the paper not too long ago and saw the headline that suggested that perhaps his father was doing something that might have been not correct and not legal, is that there are families involved. I also express concern about the families.
From time to time people on both sides of the house get to hear various things about other individuals in this town which may or may not be true. I dare say that I have heard a lot of things about Mr Moore and I dare say that he has heard a lot of things about me. That is fine; that is part of the process. But if I, or Mr Moore or anybody else, have any concrete evidence in relation to any individual where the law has not been complied with, then perhaps that evidence ought to be presented to the Minister responsible at the time, and therefore the Government, and the Government ought to do something about it. I am sure that the Government would do something about it. To take it a step further, if Mr Moore believed that that evidence was so concrete that it would stand up anywhere, he ought to have thought of going to the police as well and perhaps the police might have had something to say about it.
I also ask, Madam Speaker - I think Mr Lamont said this quite clearly: Where was Mr Moore when all these decisions were made? Where was the disallowance notice in the Assembly? Where was Mr Moore when the legislation was first passed?
Mr Lamont: Sitting there.
MR DE DOMENICO: Mr Lamont and I were not here; nor was Mrs Carnell. We were not even elected to this place. But Mr Moore was here. As Mr Lamont quite correctly said, what did he say about this part of the legislation? I believe that he said nothing. For Mr Moore all of a sudden now to say all the things that he said about individuals in this community is unfortunate. I, and a lot of members of this place, do not agree necessarily with the political stance of Mr Moore and he does not agree with us, and that is fine; but, quite honestly, I think Mr Moore does have a lot of good things to say and a lot of good ideas, although we might not agree with them. But I think that what he has done today is a bit of a worry.
No-one else has mentioned one other thing. We all, I am sure, were aware of Mr Phillips's involvement in this development. We were aware of that because Mr Phillips has been quite open about it. I believe that Mr Phillips briefed Mr Moore on a number of occasions before the PDI Committee even made its decision, up-front in the open book way that Mr Phillips does things from time to time. Mr Moore knew about it a long time ago. We all knew about Mr Phillips's involvement. I say to you, Mr Moore, that when I did know about Mr Phillips's involvement it made me, as a member of the PDI Committee, look even harder into whether the processes had been satisfied and whether the law had been satisfied. Once I was convinced that the processes had been satisfied I was prepared, with reservations on some aspects of design and siting, to go ahead and allow the change. As we know, the process comes to this Assembly, where any member of this Assembly can stand up and move to disallow it.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .