Page 2345 - Week 08 - Friday, 21 June 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MR HUMPHRIES: I certainly did use the word "undemocratic", and I used it in respect of the concept of having no Leader of the Opposition. That is undemocratic because it is a feature of the system which obtains in every Westminster parliament of which I am aware, and which I believe, therefore, is appropriate for this parliament as well.
There clearly is confusion on the part of those sitting at that end of the chamber about what it means to be in opposition or to be on the cross benches. Only a few weeks ago, Mr Collaery made great capital of the fact that he and his party were sitting on the cross benches. What does "cross benches" mean? It seems to me to connote the idea of being a cross between the government and the opposition. It cuts across those two; it is neither one nor the other. That is what I understand by that term, I think it is what Mr Collaery meant by the term when he said it, and it is in fact what most people who are familiar with the workings of parliaments understand by that term.
If he is on the cross benches, Mr Collaery cannot purport to want to be Leader of the Opposition, or to support a candidate for the position of Leader of the Opposition. It is not much better than asking the Government to vote on who will be Leader of the Opposition. I think that those people in that part of the chamber need to understand what it is that a Westminster parliament actually does and how it actually works. Those people clearly do not understand, and I suggest that they go away and do some reading and work out what it is all about.
I have to ask the question: Why was this problem not raised in this forum on 11 May 1989, or on 5 December 1989? We had an election for Leader of the Opposition only two weeks ago, on 6 June. On that occasion why did Mr Collaery, Mr Duby or anybody else in the chamber not raise this problem? There was a call for nominations. One nomination was received and that person was duly declared elected. But the fact of the matter is that we proceeded with the process of choosing a Leader of the Opposition. Why did you not object at that time to the idea of electing or choosing an Opposition Leader? Clearly, it is because their minds have changed because they thought they had the numbers.
Finally, Mr Duby said that I had given no indication of my willingness to discuss sharing of the resources of Opposition Leader. That is untrue. In fact, I said to Mr Duby, when we were discussing a paper sent downstairs by Ms Follett on the appropriate sharing of resources, that I would do so. Subsequently, a determination arrived announcing that that paper had been confirmed by Ms Follett as the appropriate allocation of resources for parties not in government. I said, however, to Mr Duby after that time - after that determination came down - that I would still be prepared to discuss the matters that we had agreed to discuss before.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .