Page 2305 - Week 08 - Friday, 21 June 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MR COLLAERY (5.03): Mr Deputy Speaker, the comments that Mr Kaine made are welcome. I am sure that many of us who would like to see the next phase of the development of this Assembly's processes take place would welcome his comments. I am sure that all in this house would agree that it is perhaps time for some navel gazing, and that is a process that could really be started by this Assembly. Perhaps the slight shock of today might initiate that. Far from seeing this Assembly dissolve into a factionalised grouping, it might well bring us together in the recognition that we really do need to refine and define our own machinery from our Canberra perspective rather than that which was pushed upon us from the hill.
I think we owe an explanation to the house for the election of a Leader of the Opposition - an office, of course, which we do not support - and I propose to make some comments on that. We saw today, understandably, the major parties united in their wish to impose a non-representative Leader of the Opposition upon the Assembly. The self-government Act was preceded by extensive overseas research and parliamentary legal advice, and there are voluminous archives to attest to that. That outcome did not provide for the office of Leader of the Opposition; nor was it set forth in the standing orders which were prepared for this fledgling Assembly. So, it is not arguable that it was not in the legislation because it was to be made part of the procedures of this house. It was not in the standing orders.
A number of the non-government members here have grave doubts about the utility of the position of Leader of the Opposition in a small unicameral Assembly such as ours. Being presumptuous enough to speak for them, we believe that the self-government Act did anticipate minority representation in the Assembly. If you speak to those excellent officials who worked on the Act, including officials from the Law Office and from the present Chief Minister's Department - present and former officials - you will know that it was clearly anticipated that the character of this city, based to an extent upon the complexion of the previous House of Assembly, was such that it would return Independents.
It is, in our view, consistent with the intention of the Act for us to take all reasonable - and, I stress, lawful - steps to nullify standing orders 5A and 5B which were drafted, in our view, to reinforce the "them and us" theme of the two-party system. Accordingly, we have joined forces on this issue to ensure that independently minded, Canberra based political groupings may operate in this chamber in a more cohesive and effective manner for all Canberrans. This does not mean that we give away our own individual attitudes. But past Assembly debates have shown that, on many issues affecting the Canberra community, we are in accord. On other issues, such as the connived creation of a self-serving power sharing arrangement between the major parties, we are in full agreement.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .