Page 4135 - Week 14 - Wednesday, 23 October 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
At this point I have to pause to reflect upon Mr Collaery's position in the whole matter. The Government is thoroughly confused on this issue. On the one hand, Mr Collaery, in his speech introducing the legislation, railed against the Government for treating him on the same basis as Mr Moore, pointing to his - Mr Collaery's - responsibilities in supervising his two brother MLAs and performing a role as a party leader. On the other hand, he is sponsoring legislation which cements him into being treated on the same basis as Mr Moore or Mr Stevenson or any other Assembly backbencher who does not have the responsibility of leading the Opposition.
This rather contradictory position means that the Government has great difficulty in treating this amendment seriously. The amendment, if passed by this Assembly, would be remarkably inflexible. Some members may well wish to negotiate with the Chief Minister with a view to the application of a staffing arrangement that other members may not wish to have applied to them. For example, a member may, within the salary cap, wish to have a particular staffing mix that other members may find inappropriate. Mr Collaery's amendment would preclude such an arrangement. Its inflexibility is undesirable.
The Government views this as little other than a stunt built upon statements by Mr Collaery in recent weeks constantly grizzling about the lack of resources. Taking away the appropriate distinction and appropriate recognition of the role of Leader of the Opposition would have this Assembly stand in a different position from any other assembly or legislature in Australia that is modelled on the Westminster system. It is therefore unnecessary and silly, and the Government does not support it.
DR KINLOCH (11.37): First of all, could I accept much that Mr Humphries says in theory and, in some parts of the world and in some legislatures, in historical practice. But in historical terms, several points need to be made. We would not disagree about this, I am sure; but I just want to make a point about the United States. Although it is not a Westminster system, and I accept that, within both the Senate and the House of Representatives there are majority and minority leaders. To be sure, there is no executive and counterexecutive. Indeed, the failed candidate in a presidential election really has no role, except within his own party, for the subsequent four years. He has no place, usually. If it had been Geraldine Ferraro, she would have had no place in the government system.
I am not sure that we should be looking at that system at all, but I would like to ponder on the Westminster tradition. It is discussed in this place and in the public as though it is some kind of concrete-set-in-stone system. It is a very recent system. It dates really, in the forms in which we find it in Australia, only from the reign of Queen Victoria. In the eighteenth century and early
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .