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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 14 Hansard (11 December) . . Page.. 4919 ..

MR OSBORNE (continuing):

external forces, but from forces that are, in fact, even more insidious. It is under threat from an old two-party system which has seen a concentration of power in the Executive, at the expense of parliament. Today, government is by Executive fiat, and parliament is little more than a rubber stamp.

I believe that the de-democratisation of Australia is almost complete. Once every three years, we simply replace one oligarchy with another. Those generally concerned about good government should concern themselves with returning parliament to its rightful place, as the keystone of our democracy. That can happen, Mr Speaker, only at the expense of Executive power, and, clearly, the chief beneficiaries of the system will staunchly resist it. In case you are wondering whom I am talking about, Mr Speaker, I mean the Labor and Liberal old parties. I hold little hope that the trend can be reversed federally. However, I think we have a rare opportunity in the ACT to do something about the imbalance. Who knows; we may start something that captures imaginations beyond our humble Legislative Assembly.

Two points need to be borne in mind when considering our system. First, the Hare-Clark electoral system will generally guarantee that neither of the major parties will be in a position to govern in its own right. Secondly, the Assembly is the smallest chamber in the Commonwealth; so, talent is very thin on the ground. Mr Speaker, it is well known that since early this year my office has been considering possible reforms to the Assembly. It has been a painstaking process as we examine what can reasonably be done to improve the system without damaging all that is worth while. We are not finished yet, Mr Speaker; but, for the record, I will go over some of the areas which we are examining. I believe that one of the key problems in this place is that, in the battle between the Executive and the Assembly, the Assembly is underresourced and often intellectually unarmed. I would like to see the committee system overhauled so that each standing committee mirrors a ministerial portfolio. The committees need more resources; but, to borrow a phrase from the Government, this could be a revenue-neutral exercise, the money to fund this to be drawn from the departments. Often, when dealing with complex financial matters, the Legislative Assembly is unable to properly scrutinise departmental submissions because it lacks the expertise to do so. I suggest that the Assembly adopt the New Zealand model, where the Auditor is given a special allocation which allows his office to assist Assembly committees.

Government in Australia is characterised also by a culture of secrecy. I have tabled a draft Freedom of Information Bill, which was passed in principle. (Extension of time granted) I intend to revisit it in the next Assembly, if I happen to be here. However, I hope that other members of the crossbenches will take up the cause, should I not be. I hope that it will, among other things, open up the closed shop of commercial-in-confidence. As it stands, the Assembly has very little say in the way the budget is formulated. The Executive presents the budget as a fait accompli and expects the Assembly to pass all, or none, of it. We would like to reform the process so that the Assembly has more scrutiny. This will involve a reform of the way the Estimates Committee works.

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