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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 8 Hansard (27 August) . . Page.. 2564 ..

MR BERRY (continuing):

Essentially, this is a political attack on the position to divide the spoils. Ms Tucker has made that clear. Mr Moore has made that clear. They want to reduce the impact of the Labor Party. That is a good way of doing it - to take away the Leader of the Opposition position, a traditional position which is used throughout the Westminster system in almost every place in which it operates. Of course, they would say that, because it weakens the Labor Party's position and it would weaken any other major political party's position in the future and make it easier for them. It is as simple as that. That is probably a simplistic way of describing it, but that is the way it is.

As to whether or not it is entrenched in law anywhere, I cannot say with any full backing that the legislation in other countries or in other parliaments provides for leaders of the opposition, but I can tell you this much: Almost everywhere that I have been looking at parliamentary systems, especially in the Westminster system, there is a Leader of the Opposition who provides the alternative government should there be a change in government. It will be a long time before that will change, I think.

If the Greens get themselves to a position where they can have this seat, I say, "Good on them", because I still think that, if the Greens are able to put together a package that puts them in a position of being the alternative government, then that is our fault - or their fault, whatever the case may be. We have to guard against that. If the Greens think that by grabbing the spoils that will resolve the situation, they have another think coming. They think the community out there will be convinced of their argument because of this approach. I was dismayed to hear Ms Tucker talk about the splitting up of the spoils. It is like doing a bit of pillaging in a small village back in the Middle Ages. You bolt in, bash down the front gate, grab everything you can and bolt. That, to me, was a dreadful suggestion. She said that we should do it now, because it would not be too painful. Ask my staff.

Mr Moore: You were not thinking of that when you rolled Andrew, were you?

MR BERRY: Indeed, I was. I have always been concerned about staff. Anybody who knows me, Michael - and you know me - knows that one of my first concerns is staff members or working people. Mr Speaker, the situation is just a silly one, where the Greens and the Independents want to lessen the effect of the major parties. The Greens are aptly named in this. They are green with envy; they want to get their little hands on the spoils. I do not think they ought to get them.

There are a couple of historical factors, too. Over the years, I have been able to deal with the Greens and Independents about salary allocations. I have to tell you that Mr Moore and his then political partner pursued with vigour increases in salary allocations.

Mr Moore: And you never have, Wayne?

MR BERRY: No.

Mr Moore: Of course I did, Wayne, because then I could do the job better.

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