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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1998 Week 1 Hansard (30 April) . . Page.. 271 ..

Issues

"Westminster Style" Government

The third edition of House of Representatives Practice gives a brief summary of the doctrine of the separation of powers - that is that there are three essentially different powers of government: legislative, executive and judicial and a country's liberty depends on each of these powers being vested in a separate body. House of Representatives Practice goes on to comment on the Australian (federal) constitutional position where there is a combining and overlapping of the legislative and executive functions:

According to Bagehot, the relationship between the legislative and executive powers in the Westminster system is better described as a 'fusion of powers':

The efficient secret of the English Constitution may be described as the close union,
the nearly complete fusion, of the executive and legislative powers.

This fusion takes place in a Cabinet, which:

...is a combining committee - a hyphen which joins, a buckle which fastens, the legislative part of the State to the executive part of the State. In its origin it belongs to
the one, in its functions it belongs to the other.

Although this fusion of powers in the Westminster tradition may be regarded as a strength, it is also recognised as a potential danger. It is accepted to be undesirable for all or any two of the three powers to come under the absolute control of a single body. There are therefore checks and balances which prevent the fusion of executive and legislative powers from being complete.2

The role of the Assembly is a derivative of that of the House of Representatives. It elects a Chief Minister who in turn forms a government and it may remove that Government should it see fit. Clearly the Assembly acts to develop the buckle that fastens the legislative part of state (itself) to the executive part, but the two continue to remain distinct and have clearly defined responsibilities and roles to play. The Assembly's law making function (including the examination of the Executive's subordinate legislation), its role in questioning and seeking clarification of and making recommendations concerning the Executive's policies, its role in scrutinising Executive administration and expenditure proposals and ensuring public money is spent in accordance with Assembly approval and in the best interests of the Territory are all predicated to a large extent on actions by the Executive and are conducted in co-operation with the Executive. It also has a role and a duty to the people of the Territory and while this relationship is present in all actions it is most paramount when it acts directly on their behalf, for example when it receives petitions from citizens of the Territory or airs or ventilates grievances raised by citizens of the Territory, grievances which may develop through Executive administration.

The development of the proposed executive committees with chairs taken from the body of the Assembly's membership is not only not explicitly provided for by the Self-Government Act, but also blurs the distinctions between executive and legislature. These distinctions currently are one of the major checks and balances that contribute to the health of the "Westminster style" of parliamentary democracy. To blur that distinction creates an opportunity for the system to become less of a servant to the people of the Territory and also creates an environment where responsibility for actions is corporate and accountability is therefore lessened.

__________________________

2 House of Representatives Practice, Third Edition, p. 70

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