Page 3026 - Week 10 - Thursday, 16 August 1990
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Assembly Business
MS FOLLETT (Leader of the Opposition) (5.25): I rise in the adjournment debate for the simple reason that I would like to point out to the Government members opposite some of the unfortunate precedents that they have set during this current sitting of the Assembly. I think that they are unfortunate from a number of points of view, but overwhelmingly because they really do fly in the face of the tradition of parliamentary democracy.
The first incident that I refer to is the attempt by the Government virtually to rule out private members' legislation by the use of, in my view, nothing less than legal trickery. You have interpreted a legal opinion and the Assembly's own standing orders in order to deny the private members in this Assembly the right to bring forward legislation, and the extension of the argument - - -
Mr Jensen: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I believe that it was not the Assembly that interpreted the legal interpretation but the Acting Speaker. I suggest that Ms Follett get it correct.
MS FOLLETT: I believe it was, in fact, a member of the Government who moved the motion, Mr Speaker. Regardless of that, the Government has used its numbers in an attempt to deny private members the right to bring forward legislation. If the arguments used by members opposite are carried to their logical conclusion, no private member could ever bring forward legislation. This is a denial of parliamentary democracy.
The second incident that we have seen is the Government's treatment of censure motions. Censure motions are extremely serious matters. We have seen very few of them in this Assembly, as Mr Humphries has pointed out; but when they are brought forward in every other house they are treated as a serious matter and debated seriously. What we have seen again from the members of Government opposite is an attempt not even to debate the merits of the motion but to turn it right around; to turn it once again into a tirade against the Labor Party. Very few of you were prepared to stand up and debate and defend your Minister - for whom, incidentally, I think there are good defences available. None of you did it; none of you said he was right. You just turned it into the usual hysterical debacle. You are a disgrace.
Finally, this evening we have seen the Government use its numbers to deny a matter of privilege being sent to the Administration and Procedures Committee. In my opinion, this means that the standing orders which govern this house are worthless. The fact that you would not even allow that matter, which I brought up in absolute good faith, to be sent to the appropriate committee - the committee referred to in our standing orders - for examination and opinion in my view is a grave error on your part. In all three of
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .