Page 4136 - Week 14 - Wednesday, 23 October 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
nineteenth century, it was essentially in the hands of the Crown. The Crown chose the Prime Minister. Of course, as we all know - and I will not go into it - eventually, in the reign of Queen Victoria, especially with the changed modernity of political life after the Great Reform Bill of 1832, and again in 1867, you got the creation of what we now call the Westminster system.
There is nothing sacred about it. It is not a sanctified system. It does not have constitutional authority. It has grown up only as a result of precedent. In any case, this Assembly is itself. We are unique. We are ourselves. We are the Legislative Assembly for the Australian Capital Territory. We are not created in the mould of the Westminster system. There are unfortunate aspects of the way we have grown up, even in the physicality of how we have been placed here, which seems to assume that we have government and opposition. Personally, I regret that this should be so for this small Assembly for a city of 300,000 people. It is not necessarily appropriate.
But, if we move away from the theory of the Westminster system or the historical background of it to the practice of this system in this Assembly, then let us face the reality that as long as it is possible to maintain a highly democratic election system - and that is to be decided, is it not, in February - if we select the Hare-Clark proportional representation system it is likely that this Assembly will continue to have a number of parties. It will not have one party on the one hand and one party on the other hand. Some people here would like to see that. I do not think that is likely. I would think that kind of system, in a place like the ACT, would produce a range of parties. I believe that I am trying to analyse this and not make political points.
So, in practice I do not accept that three people, or four if you include the Speaker, can fully be seen as an opposition or an alternative government. I recognise it in theory, but look around you; it is not so in practice. In practice we have a range of groups here, some of which are essentially equal. So, what we are talking about here is trying to recognise the reality of the particular form of governmental system we have in this house and arrange things equitably amongst us. I would want to stress that that is what should be done.
As for being an opposition, and again I only reflect on it in an historical way, let us consider this: When it came to the land tax, for example, there was one party which unitedly opposed the Government. The Residents Rally voted against the Government. All three of us did. In the case of the supposed Opposition, one voted yes, one voted no, and one walked out of the chamber in order not to vote.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .