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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2001 Week 2 Hansard (1 March) . . Page.. 467 ..

MR OSBORNE: Have they? Even so, I think that the government's option is probably a more sensible one. I have only thought about how I would approach this, should I be part of the next Stanhope government after the next election-or Ms Tucker. But, as I said, I have only really had this morning's debate to listen to to form an opinion on this, so I will be voting with the government on this one.

MR SPEAKER: I understand that the amendments were circulated in this chamber on 27 February.

MR STANHOPE (Leader of the Opposition) (12.18): I will just speak again to that matter to respond. In fact, the principle I am raising was circulated in a bill which I tabled probably 18 months ago. So the issue has been alive, and has been present in legislation tabled and available to everybody, for probably 18 months. And the matter has arisen again in the context of this particular bill, which is a convenient place to put it. Having said all that, I must say that I thought my arguments were just so sound, sensible and self-evident that I just assumed that the entire Assembly would support them. I guess I still live in hope.

Another point I would make is in response to a comment made by the Attorney. I think the Attorney acknowledges that perhaps it is unfortunate that we need to provide through legislation a mechanism for ensuring that cemented parliamentary conventions are maintained and observed. I thought it was a very telling observation, Attorney, and acknowledgment by you that perhaps in some instances some of those conventions that we all regard as absolute simply are not observed in this place.

I would be prepared to acknowledge, quite frankly, that my decision to introduce the legislation was the result of a growing frustration at the willingness of this government to simply ignore any convention that it is not convenient to comply with. I could list the litany of breaches of sound convention that has characterised this government, which is a matter of grave concern for me. And it was out of frustration at the capacity of this government to ignore conventions, to undermine the Westminster system, that led me to introduce the proposal in the first place.

And, Attorney, I acknowledge your honesty in the suggestion that perhaps it is a pity that we have to resort to legislation to ensure that some of these conventions are at least acknowledged by the government, if not observed. That was an honest admission, Attorney, and I thank you for it.

MR OSBORNE (12.20): I concede that I do recall Mr Stanhope talking about this 18 months ago, but I do reserve the right to at least object to not being informed about it, because I do not actually go over papers over the last 18 months and I was not aware it was on. Mr Stanhope's arguments were not too bad-but just not good enough.

Question put:

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