Page 2286 - Week 09 - Tuesday, 15 September 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MR CONNOLLY (Attorney-General, Minister for Housing and Community Services and Minister for Urban Services) (8.26): I also seek leave to speak briefly.
MADAM SPEAKER: I am sure that, as the Attorney-General, the Assembly will indulge you similarly now.
MR CONNOLLY: My colleague Ms Ellis, after making those remarks, did suggest to me that now that we have clarified that there is an Attorney-General, which the Opposition seemed to think was necessary, perhaps government members might move at some stage in private members business a Bill to establish that there is an opposition, because sometimes we have some real doubts as to that.
Madam Speaker, more seriously, Mr Humphries made some remarks about the possible need for a viceregal position. That was raised once before during the Alliance. I recall having some fun in debate suggesting various members of the then Alliance Cabinet who might accept lordships or other viceregal titles to perform the office. One former Minister was quite enthusiastic. I would commend to members who are interested in this subject an article by Geoff Lindell, who teaches law at the Australian National University as well as, from time to time, being an adviser in the Commonwealth Attorney-General's Department. This article, in a recent edition of the Public Law Review, probably is the most comprehensive academic treatment of the ACT constitution. Interestingly, he says that the ACT constitution would be a model for any future republican constitution because it does show how you can run the traditional executive and legislative arms of government without a viceregal representative.
Mr Humphries said that there may be a need at some future time for a viceregal position, particularly in times of crisis. A point that Lindell makes is that the First Assembly, for all its faults, and we know that there were many, had three changes of government, and in terms of treatments of a Westminster system a change of government is often seen as the point at which there is a crisis and the viceregal representative must intervene. He makes the point that that First Assembly managed quite satisfactorily to deal with three changes of government without - - -
Mr Kaine: It had to. There was no option.
MR CONNOLLY: Indeed. Mr Kaine says that it had to because there was no option. It goes to show, as was the point in the article, that you do not need a viceregal representative; that democratic government can operate without it. The traditional ministerial arrangements, where Ministers are accountable to an Assembly, where the Executive exercises the traditional powers of the Crown, can, in fact, operate; you can have a system which creates a body politic under the Crown, which is the position from section 6 of the self-government Act, and it can operate without a viceregal representative. So I would say to Mr Humphries that it is unnecessary, but I commend to any members who are interested in this issue, because it is an interesting constitutional issue, Geoff Lindell's article in the recent Public Law Review.
Question resolved in the affirmative.
Bill agreed to.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .