Page 1568 - Week 04 - Thursday, 25 March 2010
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
While questions relating to individual commitments which a minister has responsibility to implement are entirely appropriate, as has been demonstrated for those opposite yesterday and again today in question time, questions that address the nature of an agreement between two parties are, and should be, out of order. It is really nice today to have affirmation or confirmation of that position from Mr Smyth when he was actually being honest and being himself, when he actually was not posturing for the cameras. He could have essentially written the Speaker’s ruling on this particular issue.
It is a real pity that neither Mr Smyth nor the Liberal Party chose to be transparent and honest about their real position in relation to the true nature of the ALP-Greens agreement. They hid it, they pretended that it was not the position that Mr Smyth espoused last year—a total lack of transparency, a total lack of openness, an essentially dishonest position in relation to this particular issue.
It is not uncommon for issues concerned with the separation of powers to be raised in this chamber. Of course, this commonly takes the form of the Liberals arguing that, while the occupants of the other arms of government are free to criticise the actions of the executive, there is no occasion on which it is appropriate for the executive to take issue with, debate, question or raise an eyebrow at the actions of those other arms of government. Of course, though they try, the Liberals cannot have it both ways.
The separation of powers is one of the basic elements of our system of responsible government. It is a separation that is abrogated, eroded and damaged when, for example, the opposition tries to interfere to have the Assembly set the Auditor-General’s budget. Quite apart from the bizarre context in which this interference takes place, a context in which our Auditor-General is demonstrably well funded, there are crucial reasons why the Assembly cannot and should not have powers to set budgets—reasons that go to the very heart of the separation of powers.
First, as we have indicated before, only ministers can introduce bills with financial implications. This limitation is contained within the self-government act and safeguards the integrity of the ACT’s budget. Attempts to circumvent this basic tenet of our democracy by, for example, directing ministers fall foul of the basic rules for responsible government.
The Assembly cannot, and should not be able to, direct ministers in the exercise of executive powers. This doctrine is widely accepted as an implied element of the commonwealth constitution that flows through to other elements of the Australian constitutional framework and ends up right here, in this chamber, in the work we do and the way we do it.
More broadly, it does not make logical sense for the Assembly to elect to determine funding for certain offices, because each of these offices amounts to just one of the myriad calls upon the budget. It is absolutely proper that they be weighed against all other competing priorities for a share of the budget. While the government accepts and welcomes and is more than happy to respond to debate around how it exercises its functions, it must be for the government of the day to determine appropriate budgets and priorities. It is what governments are elected to do.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video