Page 45 - Week 02 - Tuesday, 23 May 1989
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
now, we will wait for you to get your legal opinion and see that. I believe other factors come into it.
I move on to the democratic aspect that the Chief Minister brought up. Her question was, first of all, "Is there a body better qualified than us to make this sort of decision?". It seems to me that the whole democratic nature of this system is in question. When we have a system of government and opposition, there are certain aspects about that balance. This particular floor does not have those same aspects of government and opposition. Therefore, for us to follow in traditional ways is very difficult, but the traditions of government and opposition are set. If we are to follow those traditions, then it would be inappropriate for a government to take any part in the election of an opposition. I refer to the fact that the people involved in electing the Government were also involved in electing the Opposition.
I think there is an important precedent that does exist, that was alluded to by Mr Collaery, and I draw your attention to the situation which arose in the Saskatchewan Legislative Assembly again in October 1977, when the Progressive Conservative Party, in opposition, became tied with the Liberal Party, also in opposition. This set a precedent within the Commonwealth. The problem was resolved.
The Chief Minister drew attention to what happens in Australia. We will be using a Commonwealth system and surely we must recognise ourselves and this institution as part of a Commonwealth system. The problem was resolved because the draftsman of the relevant legislation had defined the position of opposition leader in the legislative assembly Act. Section 24 of that Act defined the leader of the opposition as the leader of the largest grouping. In the case of equality of membership of two or more such groups, the Act indicated there was no leader of the opposition. So we do have a precedent, and we also
have tradition.
We should be looking to making sure that we have an assembly that works most effectively for the people in the most democratic manner. That would suggest that we ought look to a system where there is no official opposition, but I respectfully suggest we should be looking at a system that has a leader of the opposition, Liberal Party, if you like; a leader of the opposition, Residents Rally; a leader of the opposition, No Self Government Party; and a leader of the opposition, Abolish Self Government Coalition.
When Mr Kaine spoke ad hominem, he questioned whether this is a matter of public importance. His whole means of judging whether it was a matter of public importance really revolved around the number of people that said to him - - -
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .