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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2001 Week 7 Hansard (20 June) . . Page.. 2151 ..

MR STANHOPE (continuing):

You cannot have it both ways. You cannot stand here and beat the drum for minority government and then complain if you do not have the numbers. You cannot have it both ways. You cannot say the government must be able to govern irrespective of the policies it throws up if it does not have a majority and then go out and beat the drum for minority government. I do not know how Mr Moore does that. I do not know how he reconciles the two positions.

Yes, the government always needs to govern. The government can throw up any sorts of policy initiatives it wants in relation to anything and have a right to expect the Assembly simply to accept it, to cop it, to take it on the chin, and then to go out and insist on what a wonderful democracy we have achieved or that we can respond to as a result of an attempt to institutionalise minority government. The government gets its support from within this place. It is within this place that the government needs to maintain its support. We all know that.

This is not an argument about whether or not an amendment to the Financial Management Act that Mr Berry proposes, and the Labor Party supports, in any way affects or impacts on the financial imperatives of the crown. That is not what it is about. As the Speaker said at the outset, the proposed amendments are entirely consistent with parliamentary practice, accepted Westminster practice, in relation to these issues around the world. As the Speaker pointed out, the motion is in order. It reflects absolutely the understanding that applies all around the world in Westminster parliaments about a government's budget and the imperatives of the executive or the government or the crown in relation to expenditure. The Speaker went to some pains to indicate that this amendment bill is in order. It precisely reflects the Westminster arrangements and conventions, explicit parliamentary practice, in relation to these issues.

How can you stand up here and say that we are setting some outrageous precedent when the motion is in order? It is entirely consistent with practice in relation to these issues. You might say it is undesirable. You might argue, as Mr Moore attempted to argue and as I know the Canberra Times loves to argue, that it hands, in an unnecessary way, power to the crossbench. That is an argument that I have seen the Canberra Times put time and time again; that what the major parties, the Liberal Party and the Labor Party, are doing in relation to these issues over the year, particularly through Mr Cornwell's earlier intervention in this way, and now Mr Berry's, is handing all this enormous power to the crossbenches. Well, surprise, surprise, they already have it because we have minority government. It is nonsense to suggest that in relation to this one issue the parties are handing up to the crossbench, as if they are not to be trusted in relation to the budget but can be trusted in relation to everything else, some enormous power which they will abuse and misuse. That is another issue which I am happy to debate.

In relation to this particular issue, we have a proposal here that is in order. It is consistent with Westminster practice. It is consistent with parliamentary practice. It is not something that is done much in other parliaments because no other parliaments have to endure minority government, but that does not mean that it is any less appropriate here. That does not mean that it is out of order. We have minority government. It has been a fact of this place for the last 11 years. People stand up in this place and say, "Don't do it. Don't go down this track." Mr Moore, with his passionate language, says, "Don't do this. This is outrageous. This is terrible," despite the fact, of course, that he actually initiated the process. It is a complete denial of self-government.

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