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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1999 Week 7 Hansard (30 June) . . Page.. 1820 ..

MR CORNWELL (continuing):

Unlike in other legislatures in the Westminster system, in this Assembly the defeat of any initiative is not normally taken as a want of confidence. It is really only the defeat of a budget - which has never happened, fortunately - or a specific vote of this Assembly that can see a government fall. Here in the ACT, with what I think I can call our modest parliament, without the external checks or balances of a Governor or an Administrator, you must establish mechanisms for stability and good government here on the floor of the Assembly.

In the 10 years of the Legislative Assembly I believe that we have worked very hard to establish its credibility in the face - initially, at least - of considerable hostility, scepticism and derision. I believe we have worked hard to develop a system of government that has been flexible, inclusive, open and accountable. We have done this because the reality of government in the ACT is the reality of minority government.

The positive aspect of our Assembly is that each and every member of this place must act in the most accountable way possible and is subject to the highest level of scrutiny. The obverse of this openness and accountability is the possibility that governments and individual members, because of the small size of this place, can be held to ransom or can even be preyed upon by people, internally or externally. There was some evidence of this in the First Assembly, I think it would be fair to say, for members who were there. But generally speaking members here have resisted the temptation to engage in this type of thuggery.

As recently as last Sunday Mr Stanhope acknowledged that "minority governments put serious constraints on effective government" and said that he "would rather see Ms Carnell with a majority in her own right than the system we currently have". I have no argument with that. It is a matter for another debate and another report which hopefully will be brought down soon. But I think that the smallness of this place does highlight the problems that we can face.

In considering a motion of want of confidence, the Assembly must adopt the highest possible standards of process. Given the seriousness of the motion and that it takes precedence over all other business at a particularly crucial time in this parliamentary year, bearing in mind that we have the estimates and the budget to come forward, the rigour with which we must approach this debate is great. The conclusion we come to must be above reproach and stand up to the close scrutiny of our fellow Canberrans. The demands of good government require that executives - I repeat "executives" - not Chief Ministers, are not to be dismissed on whim.

I would caution members. Serious disruption flows from a change of government, and usually significant changes in policy, which would take a long time to be implemented and to succeed. A decision today to dismiss the Executive will have enormous repercussions for the Australian Capital Territory. Apart from the arguments that appeal to sentiment, this I have to say is the most popular Chief Minister and Government that Canberra has seen. This Chief Minister and Government have brought Canberra through some of its darkest economic days. We must look rationally at the disruption and chaos that will be caused by a decision to dismiss, I repeat, the Executive.

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