Page 3003 - Week 14 - Tuesday, 5 December 1989
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
made by the leader of the No Self Government Party. If there has been any alternative proposal that has been presented to this Assembly, that is the most significant. So there is no matter of policy that can give you substance for what you are doing today. Substantially you have followed the Government's agenda and the Government's priorities.
Let us take an example of ways that oppositions traditionally attack the government. I refer to debates on matters of public importance. As in the Federal Parliament, we have an hour allocated every sitting day for such debate. As the House of Representatives Practice, the book that most of us have, indicates, it is an opportunity for the opposition. It is opposition time.
In 37 sitting days here the opposition has raised 12 matters of public importance. Rosemary Follett raised one. In the 18 days since that long September break when matters, it would appear, became more critical, you have raised four matters of public importance. So there is nothing out there - nothing that is happening in here either - that has particularly concerned you. You have not taken the opportunity available to you.
But what is the record on the hill? Go back to 1983 when the Hawke Government first came in. In 49 sitting days 46 matters of public importance were raised. They have used it. You do not know how. You have not found anything of importance. In 1984 in Federal Parliament, over a period of 52 sitting days, 50 matters were submitted; in 1987, 74 sittings, 73 matters raised; and 1988, 65 and 61. If you had a problem, if you thought there was a matter of difficulty, you could have raised it. But you have not taken the simple opportunity that has been given to you. I might add that I cannot find, in the last two years certainly, instances where any government member in the House of Representatives raised a matter. They do have that availability, but I do not believe they have used it. Perhaps you can send someone out to see whether you can find out, and shoot my argument down.
Of course, the ultimate test is that you let the budget through without a murmur, because obviously you wanted to do so. You are condemned by the record of Hansard. You have no complaint that you can justifiably hold against this Government. Your record is weak. You cannot substantiate this motion based on issues and you cannot substantiate it based on any policies. Your motion is based on two factors, one of which is legitimate, and that is ambition, and the other is ego. That is not a legitimate basis for any motion.
The motion arose, Mr Collaery, not in the way you described, but in the particular circumstances of last Thursday. On that Thursday you were mangled in the Canberra Times, after your turnaround on the seat of that chair on X-rated videos; you were savaged on the radio; and then
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .