Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1996 Week 6 Hansard (23 May) . . Page.. 1738 ..

MR WHITECROSS (continuing):

If the parliament does not like the way the Government is doing their job, if the parliament, through scrutiny processes - whether through questions without notice, the Public Accounts Committee, the Estimates Committee or whatever else - says, "We do not like the way you are doing things", there are options open to us. There are options open to us under our system of government. But while these people are in government - and the crossbenchers all voted for them - they are entitled to govern. That is the system of government we have. The crossbenchers, having chosen to stand outside the major parties that form government and instead sit on the sidelines in these debates, then feel frustrated that they cannot be the Executive and they keep trying to create Executive-type roles for the parliament. This is a classic example.

You cannot regulate investment in this way. It is not an appropriate way of doing things. If you want an ethical approach to these things or if you want a prudent approach to these things - I am not sure whether prudence, which seems to be Mr Moore's argument, or ethics, which seems to be Ms Tucker's argument, is paramount in this - you make sure that you elect a government that will deliver those things. If they are not comfortable that they have - - -

Mr Moore: There are no such ones around, mate. If you want a government like that you choose one of us as Chief Minister.

MR WHITECROSS: You are open to nominate, Mr Moore, if you want to, and see how many votes you get. Mr Moore, the thing is that if you appoint the government you work with the government. There are scrutiny processes to expose things that you are not happy with. If Mrs Carnell goes off and invests in things that you do not like, whether for prudential reasons or ethical reasons, you can scrutinise and expose that. You can come back to this Assembly and say, "We are not satisfied. Change, or else". You want to have it both ways. You want to appoint the government and then you want to come in behind every single decision the government makes and reserve the right to change it. That is not how our system of government works, and I do not think we should take another step down that road in this way.

Mr Speaker, I regret, but I am sure that the crossbenchers do not, that this will give them another opportunity for their silly stunt of "Labor votes with the Liberals to defeat the crossbenchers"; but I am afraid that on this occasion that is going to be the case because we cannot agree to this amendment.

MR MOORE (6.10): Mr Speaker, I rise to speak a second time to this amendment. Having heard such a strong statement from Labor, I would appeal to the Government who, when in opposition, supported again and again such checks and balances. All we are talking about is a check. In this case there are checks and balances in terms of a set of guidelines. Mr Whitecross, for some reason, is starting to dress it up as though we are interfering with the investment processes of the Government. It is not about that. It is simply about the guidelines. I think that misrepresenting the situation in that way is silly.

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .