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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1998 Week 9 Hansard (19 November) . . Page.. 2705 ..

MR HUMPHRIES (continuing):

I do not imagine that the Liberal Party will remain in government forever. In fact, I am quite certain that we will not. I think it will be useful once again for us, in the position of being on the opposition benches, to have a greater degree of control over what salaries are set for us and other members of the Assembly by the Executive of the day.

I state very clearly that I believe it is appropriate for the Executive to set the staffing allocations, as every Executive before us has set staffing allocations. But let me say that, if the Assembly decides today that it wants a new regime, if it wants the Assembly to set those allocations, we will live with that precedent. We will adapt to it and we will be very pleased to use it when next we find ourselves on the opposition benches. I think it is a bit much to expect that the glass barrier can be broken and then somehow put back together again when next the Opposition finds itself in government and vice versa.

Mr Stanhope: You have broken that barrier with this vindictive discriminatory action. You have already broken it. You have set the precedent.

MR HUMPHRIES: Mr Speaker, the precedent will be that the Assembly decides to exercise power in this area where previously it has not exercised power and where previously the Executive had the right to make a decision. There is a shift - only one, I might say, among many such shifts - from the Executive to the legislature in terms of the exercise of power. It has happened on a number of occasions before, and it has been a gradual process that has continued throughout the life of this Assembly from almost the very first day it sat. This would be one further step in that transition.

Mr Speaker, as I said, I reject the assertion that this is about punishing other members. It is not. The Chief Minister has laid down the criteria that she feels are appropriate for the decision to be made. Mr Speaker, if members consider that the treatment of individual members in this sort of way is punishment, as I said, it is not the first time that it has occurred. In fact, I recall a case that affected me personally in the past. In the middle of 1993, I approached the then Executive about extra staffing allocation to the Opposition Whip, which position I held at that particular time. I argued that there ought to be special recognition of the Opposition Whip's position in managing opposition business.

The request for increase in assistance was not processed by the then Government for 18 months. It took a year-and-a-half for the then Government to make a decision about what should be the appropriate allocation of staffing for the Opposition Whip. It decided, 18 months or so later, that there should be no increase in staffing for the Opposition Whip. Interestingly, just a few months later, after the Government had changed and those same people found themselves in opposition, the request for an increase in staffing was revived. They came back and said, "We think on reflection you were right. There ought to be extra money for the Opposition Whip", Mr Speaker. If that was not punishment of the Opposition - punishment of an individual member, if you like - how was it different from what is happening in this particular case? I am not sure that it is very different.

Mr Speaker, I come back finally to the argument about money. It is necessary to find money from somewhere else to do this. We will have to find resources from somewhere to meet this allocation. If we do so, then there will be a precedent set. As I say, I am very happy in the long term with the consequences of that precedent. I think it is a bad precedent; but it is one that I will, as member of an opposition one day, touch wood,

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