Page 1078 - Week 05 - Tuesday, 23 June 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
In Australia there has been a serious tendency toward untrammelled executive dominance. We -
that is the presiding officers -
consider that the underlying principle of executive dominance and the weakening of the other arms of government is a problem in this state, and we also consider that improvements need be made to better allocate powers and responsibilities among the arms of government in a number of areas in Victoria ... Unless the implications of the need to balance the arms of government are fully understood and acted upon, there is a real danger that the executive branch will make the other branches subservient, and the checks and balances required in the constitution will be lost.
I would argue that the forces at work in the ACT are no less apparent, no less real, than the forces to which those presiding officers referred in Victoria. There is a very real question about how much accountability, how much responsibility, the executive arm of government has to the other two arms, in this case, in particular, the legislative arm of this Assembly.
There are a number of ways in which that balance can be eroded in favour of the executive arm - small matters, perhaps, but very pertinent ones, very real ones. There is, as Mr Stevenson has pointed out, no house of review in this parliament. There is no second chamber to check what we might be doing. Question time grows exceedingly short. Not infrequently in the last few months we have found question time cut off before 3 o'clock. Questions are a way of keeping an executive arm of government accountable and responsible to the parliament. We find fewer questions in the average length of question time. In the previous parliament it was possible for every member not in government to get one question. Not these days, Madam Speaker. These days it is very rare for all members of the Opposition, and perhaps even members of the back bench of the Government, to get the opportunity to ask a question.
The fact of life is that there are signs, very real signs, I would argue, that the executive arm of government is increasing in its power relative to the legislative arm in this Assembly. Nothing more tellingly points up that accretion in the power and the position of the Executive than the proposals it brings forward to this parliament to rush legislation through the Assembly. Look at the program. Three financial institutions Bills were introduced last Wednesday and are to be debated into law six days after their introduction. The same with the Land (Planning and Environment) (Amendment) Bill. Four domestic violence Bills were introduced last Thursday. The second day they appear on the notice paper they are to be debated into law. Six days after their introduction they are to be debated into law. The same with the NRMA-ACT Road Safety Trust Bill. The same with the Essential Services (Continuity of Supply) Bill.
Mr Connolly: What an impressive list of law reform measures. It shows government hard at work.
MR HUMPHRIES: It is an important piece of legislation, I grant you. It is too important to rush through; too important to make a mistake about. When you people opposite assume the mantle of infallibility - that you do not make mistakes; that you cannot possibly get something wrong - then I and my
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .