Page 1380 - Week 05 - Tuesday, 5 April 2005
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MR QUINLAN: No, I have been there and I have seen it. I have seen it in this place—the re-creation—
Opposition members interjecting—
MR QUINLAN: I’ve been Gary-ed; I’ll remember that. Anyway, I do thank the house for its support.
Opposition members interjecting—
MR QUINLAN: No, it is from my heart. I do thank you for your unqualified support and, based on today’s debate, I really look forward to the budget debate in May and June.
Question resolved in the affirmative.
Bill agreed to in principle.
Leave granted to dispense with the detail stage.
Bill agreed to.
Adjournment
Motion (by Mr Corbell) proposed:
That the Assembly do now adjourn.
Select Committee on Estimates—membership
MRS DUNNE (Ginninderra) (5.53): I refer to the decision of the Stanhope government, which is becoming apparent, to revamp the composition and purpose of the Select Committee on Estimates and ensure that there is a majority of government members on the committee and that a government member is chairman of the committee. This seems to have been done so as to better reflect the Chief Minister’s understanding of parliamentary democracy.
On behalf of my colleagues, and indeed the entire ACT electorate, I would like to express my gratitude to the Chief Minister for clarifying his view of parliamentary democracy, because we now can put his thoughts into a proper historical and philosophical context. Just think of the lineage: John Locke, Thomas Jefferson, Winston Churchill—and now Jon Stanhope. But, before we consider the Chief Minister’s overhaul of responsible government and the estimates committee in particular, we should think back to what the territory’s leading democrat said in the aftermath of last year’s election: the people of Canberra, he quavered, had nothing to fear from an ALP majority government—of course not, because Mr Stanhope would be a government for all people, of all people, all of the time; it would be open and accountable; it would be responsive. A simple-minded person might suppose that means that it would be a government that, amongst other things, respects parliamentary tradition and convention. They are fine
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .