Page 2840 - Week 10 - Wednesday, 15 August 1990
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Mr Speaker, the importance of this motion needs to be emphasised over and over again because it goes to the heart of parliamentary democracy and the rightful position of oppositions in the delivery of government in any place. It is particularly relevant in the ACT at this time because of the style of government which we have had imposed on us by the collective opposite. It means that if we allow this Government to continue on its present tack the Opposition will be manacled and will not be able to move any private members' legislation which would have any effect on the community, and the Government will never be placed in the limelight because it will never be called on to vote on important issues which might be enshrined in legislation.
Mr Speaker, this motion is an important one. It needs to be made clear that it, too, will identify where the Government stands on the issue of private members' legislation. If it opposes this motion I am quite certain that we will be able to focus on it again for attempting to ensure that no worthwhile private members' legislation will come forward and for attempting to ensure that the limelight will not be focused on it for its autocratic style and, I should add, its behind closed doors style of government.
With this motion we set out to open up government and open up the debate in this place and to ensure that those who have been elected with particular election promises are called to task and identified when votes on particular and important issues are taken in this place.
MR COLLAERY (Attorney-General) (10.44): Mr Speaker, I do not wish to debate the legal advice from the Government Law Office which has already been tendered to the chamber by the Acting Speaker. I do not think that is appropriate. But Mr Berry, clearly, is trying to contest that advice as to what section 65 of the Australian Capital Territory (Self-Government) Act means by, in effect, putting forward a standing order that has the effect of changing that section. That proposal to substitute a provision, which reads the way he wants it to read, in standing order 200 would have the effect of removing the current provision in standing order 200 which is that legislation, the object or effect of which is to dispose of or charge public money of the Territory - that is, to keep schools open - may be introduced only by a Minister. That standing order is expressed in identical terms to section 65 of the self-government Act.
Mr Berry's proposed amendment to the standing orders seeks to allow Bills which have the object or effect of disposing of or charging public money of the Territory to be introduced contrary to the terms of section 65 of the self-government Act. So he wants a restriction on who can initiate legislation to be confined to Bills which appropriate public moneys. Mr Speaker, people should get clear the distinction between Bills that appropriate moneys and Bills that have the effect of charging the public
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .