Page 39 - Week 02 - Tuesday, 23 May 1989
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Against this background, is Mr Collaery claiming that the Assembly should not exercise this power, or that there is some other body with an overriding power which should be responsible for the identification of the official Opposition? If Mr Collaery is saying that the Assembly should not exercise its power, perhaps he should start negotiations with Mr Stevenson, who, I believe, has also expressed the view that the Assembly ought not to exercise its responsibilities.
Clearly, it is a nonsense to argue that we should selectively employ the powers given to the Assembly simply to prop up the fortunes of those unable to rationally work within those powers. Alternatively, is Mr Collaery of the view that some body other than the Assembly has an overriding power which transcends the Assembly's responsibility to determine its own procedures?
Perhaps Mr Collaery's concern is a different one. If he is unhappy with the way in which the Assembly has determined the official Opposition, I can only refer him to subsection 18(2) of the self-government legislation which specifies that questions arising at a meeting of the Assembly shall be decided by a majority of the members present and voting.
Again, it is clear that the Assembly has acted within its power and according to the requirements placed upon it by the self-government legislation.
Leaving aside the legal aspects of this issue, we should now consider the second argument implicit in the motion. The argument is that the Assembly is somehow not an appropriate or qualified body to determine which of the parties represented within it ought to be the Opposition in circumstances where two parties not in government have equal representation.
The underlying implication is that there is some other body which is better qualified than the Assembly to determine such a question. Is Mr Collaery suggesting that we ask the Commonwealth Parliament to bring down a ruling, or is he suggesting that a new election be held so that the voters of the ACT can now indicate which party may wish to be crowned as the Opposition? Of course he is not.
The people of the Territory voted in the March election precisely so that its representatives could determine issues such as this. In other words, the very nature of the Assembly qualifies it to determine matters such as the identity of the official Opposition. To argue that we, as an Assembly, ought to resort to some other body or set of practices to hand down a decision on what must be regarded as our own business is to, again, side with those who do not wish the Assembly to exercise its responsibilities and powers.
The third question is one of precedent. Why should this Assembly elect the Leader of the Opposition when other
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .