Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .
Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2003 Week 11 Hansard (22 October) . . Page.. 3898 ..
MS TUCKER (continuing):
This change is, in fact, the most fundamental constitutional change since Federation. The "modest proposal", as Howard misleadingly calls it, would abolish the requirement for governments to call a double dissolution election before holding a joint session, thereby removing the capacity of the Senate to check the power of the executive.
It is important to realise that Howard and those before him have steadily removed any accountability in the House of Representatives. Party discipline has basically muzzled the house and the power of the executive-Prime Minister and Cabinet-has been growing at the expense of parliament.
It is interesting to look at the difference with the UK. Blair had to face 140 MPs crossing the floor over the Iraq war. He is now facing, in question time, a barrage of questions from his party on the elusive weapons of mass destruction and other matters. Compare that with the pathetic performance on the same issue in our House of Representatives.
This so-called modest proposal is an attempt by John Howard and his party to increase the power of government by making the Senate impotent. If that is not bad enough, a worse tragedy is that the so-called opposition is once again timidly running beside the government in supporting its worst deeds.
Hugh Mackay recently wrote in the Age about Australian politics and the challenge for a Labor leader as follows:
This is a finely balanced electorate. When it comes to the crunch, our votes are usually split almost equally between the two major parties. But much of our apparent support for those parties is actually quite soft, which is why we are increasingly attracted to the Greens and to independents who seem to have something worthwhile to say.
We are quite persuadable, but we need to feel that our aspirations and ideals are being addressed.
For a start, we would hope to see clearer policy differences between Labor and the Government...
Our faith in the two-party system, already shaken, is further eroded by any perception that there are insufficient philosophical differences to justify the adversarial character of our Parliament.
Mr Speaker, if Labor support that, they are showing themselves to be without integrity or principle. It is also interesting to see how the Democrats have been prepared to accept the assertion that something is wrong with the current system and have come up with their own watered down version. This is not the time for watering down a bad proposal. This is the time to say that it is a bad proposal and recognise it as the grab for power that it is.
What are the arguments being put by the major parties? Mr Howard claims the Senate is a house of obstruction. That is quite incorrect. The reality is that since 1973 the Senate has blocked less than 3 per cent of government legislation. On the other hand, interestingly, the government has opposed the 57 private members bills presented to the
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .