17 November 1993

7148 I!11ttattt (fountt Wednesday, 17 November 1993 THE PRESIDENT (Hon Clive Griffiths) cook the Chair at 2.30 pm, and read prayers. SELECT COMMITITEE ON PROFESSIONAL AND OCCUPATIONAL LIABILITY Final Report Tabling, Extension of Time HON MAX EVANS (North Metropolitan - Minister for Finance) [2.35 pm]: I am directed to report that the Select Committee on Professional and Occupational Liability requests that the dare fixed for the presentation of its final report be extended from 30 November 1993 to 16 December 1993 and in the event the House is not sitting on that date Standing Order No 366 apply as if the report were that of a standing committee. I move - That the report do lie upon the Table and be adopted and agreed to- [See paper No 813.1 MOTION - URGENCY Lightfoot, Hon Ross, Commnents Debate resumed from 11I November. HON GEORGE CASH (North Metropolitan - Leader of the House) [2.37 pm): Members will be aware that last Thursday Hon Tom Stephens moved an urgency motion to allow debate on the comments he attributed to my parliamentary colleague, Mon Ross Lightfoot. On the same day Hon Ross Lightfoot had the opportunity to respond to the comments made by Hon Tom Stephens. Given that the House listened almost in silence to Hon Ross Lightfoot's contribution, it was a clear indication that the members of the Legislative Council were interested in what he had to say. More than that, they learnt a fair bit from what he said. It is quite clear that Hon Tom Stephens moved the urgency motion to score some political points. He wanted to get up in this place and claim that out of all the members in this place he was the only one who was a friend of the Aboriginal community in this State. Hon P.H. Lockyer: A group in Kununurra don't think that. Hon GEORGE CASH: I acknowledge that interjection because Hon Phil Lockyer and I were in Kununurra last Friday. It is not necessary for me to be uncharitable about Hon Tomn Stephens so early in today's proceedings, but the people in Kununurra do not appear to be very friendly towards him. Obviously they gave us some reasons for their feelings and perhaps that will be the subject of a debate on another day. Hon AJ.G. MacTiemnan: Which bar were you in? Hon GEORGE CASH: We were not in any bar at all. We did not have time to go to any bar. As I say, some of the comnments made to us will no doubt make a most interesting debate in this place at some later stage. I was fascinated with some of the comments that were made. Several members interjected. The PRESIDENT: Order! Hon GEORGE CASH: Hon Tom Stephens attempted to score a political point and in my view Hon Ross Lightfoot got up and defended his position particularly well. Hon John Halden: Do you agree with his statements? Hon GEORGE CASH: He gave the reasons that he used the words that he did. Hon John Malden: But do you agree with them? [Wednesday, 17 November 1993])14 7149 Hon GEORGE CASH: This is the point I made when I started my speech last Thursday. Hon John Halden: I would be delighted to hear. Hon GEORGE CASH: Most statements are open to interpretation. Hon Tom Stephens, for his political advantage, decided to interpret them in one way. Having listened to my colleague, I interpret those words in quite a different way and I do not believe his comments were made with any malice. He was making a statement about his perception of Aboriginal history in Western Australia. Hon Tom Stephens: Do you agree with the Premier? Hon GEORGE CASH: While I do not have the exact words that the member stated to the House, as I recall, he advised the House - Hon Tom Stephens: I sent them over to you. Hon GEORGE CASH: I have those words; at this stage I am talking about the words of Hon Ross Lightfoot. Hon Tom Helm: You are eminently forgettable. Hon Tom Stephens interjected. The PRESIDENT: Order! If Hon Tom Stephens interjects again, I will name him. Hon GEORGE CASH: The point I am making is that when Hon Ross Lightfoot explained to the House the content, the context and the import of the statements he made, most reasonable people would take a different interpretation of those comments from that put forward by Hon Tom Stephens. Hon Tom Stephens does both Hon Ross Lightfoot and this House a disservice when he moves urgency motions such as he did, because all he really does is to divide the community; that is, white against black and black against white. I find very regrettable the comments in which Hon Tom Stephens attempted to claim some friendship or kinship to Aboriginal communities in Western Australia. It is also regrettable that Hon Tom Stephens moved that motion on Thursday, II November, which happened to be the seventy-fifth anniversary of the Armistice. Hon John Halden: It was also the anniversary of another day, a much more despicable event. Hon GEORGE CASH: I assume the member is talking about the removal of the incompetent Mr Whitlam in 1975. Hon John Halden: The destruction of democracy. Hon GEORGE CASH: The point I make about I11 November being the seventy-fifth anniversary of the Armistice is that men and women of Australia went to war and died because one of the things that they wanted to stand for was freedom of speech. Hon John Halden: We can see that by the guillotine. Hon GEORGE CASH: Whether we like what people might say or whether we interpret what people say to our own advantage, it is pretty low in my book for members to come in here and ascribe various meanings to the comments that are made by a member when that member clearly said that they were not what were intended in his statement. As has been said in this place on numerous occasions, members do not necessarily have to agree with what is said by a member - Hon John Halden: We do not. Hon GEORGE CASH: - but members have to listen to it. Hon Reg Davies: That is provided the debate is not gagged, of course. Hon GEORGE CASH: I do not believe the debate was gagged. Hon Reg Davies will get his chance to speak in due course. People are entitled to express a view. Given his claim about his friendship with the Aboriginal community, the very least that Hon Tom Stephens could have done was to ask Hon Ross Lightfoot what was meant by his comments. That is what members on this side of the House did when they had an opportunity. 7150 [COUNCIL] Hon John Halden: They were interpreted. Hon GEORGE CASH: Hon Ross Lightfoot was able to get up in this place later to explain the situation. All statements are open to interpretation. In moving the urgency motion, Hon Torn Stephens claimed that Hon Ross Lightfoot had apportioned malice to his statement. Having listened to my colleague's comments, I do not believe that was the case at all. Hon John Halden: The Leader of the House in the other place would not agree with that. He distanced himself at a rare of knots. Hon GEORGE CASH: I will not discuss what might, or might not, have been said in another place The standing orders make it clear that members are not meant to relate to discussions or debates in the ether House. Hon T.G. Butler: You are not very convincing. Hon GEORGE CASH: Notwithstanding the standing orders, some public comments have been made. It seems to me that, quite clearly, ir is easy to judge people and to make an interpretation of something if people do not bother to check with the author of the comments as to what was intended to be said. Regrettably I believe that occurred in the statements that were ascribed to Hon Ross Lightfoot. I need to make another point; that is, I do not stand in this House to defend Hon Ross Lightfoot. He is big enough, tough enough and more than able to defend himself. Hon T.G. Butler: You are defending the indefensible. Hon GEORGE CASH: Hon Ross Lightfoot ably demonstrated that last Thursday when he spoke in this House. One of the reasons I wanted to make a contribution to this debate was to point out that Hon Tom Stephens, who claims to have this great relationship with the Aboriginal community, did not move his urgency motion to achieve any reconciliation between black and white in this State. Hon John Halden: You would not suggest that H-on Ross Lightfoot would do that? Hon GEORGE CASH: It was more in an attempt to divide the Aboriginal and white communities. Given the claim to friendship with the Aboriginal community by Hon Torn Stephens, that is something we all regret. I invite members to read very carefully the words of Hon Ross Lightfoot, the words that were published in the local newspaper and, as I recall, also in The Australian newspaper. I then ask members to read the words used by Hon Ross Lightfoot in this House when he responded to Hon Tom Stephens last Thursday. If members are still unsure of the intent or the import of the statements made, they should then look at some of the debate in the Legislative Assembly last Thursday. Quite clearly, the mover of the motion in that place did not understand the meaning of the words in the letter of Hon Ross Lightfoot to those newspapers.

Load more