Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 8 Hansard (27 August) . . Page.. 2568 ..

MRS CARNELL (continuing):

Unlike Mr Berry and his colleagues, we have never taken the view that the job of the Opposition is simply to oppose everything the Government does, Mr Speaker. The role of the Opposition is to look at issues that come before the Assembly, that the Government brings before the Assembly, to scrutinise those, to produce a more transparent style of government, to ensure that the community's interests are being upheld or are being looked after by the government of the day, not simply to oppose for the sake of opposition, Mr Speaker. If we can come up with proposals that do that, this side of the house - the Government - will be very keen to look at them.

Mr Speaker, I oppose this motion with a certain degree of reluctance, as all people on this side of the house would do. I have to say again that it would achieve nothing more than a reallocation of salaries. I do not believe that that is appropriate; nor does this side of the house. But, Mr Speaker, let us use this debate as the basis for moving to a new and more efficient system to operate in this Assembly.

MS McRAE (5.38): One factor that has been overlooked in the entire debate is that the positions of Leader of the Opposition and Deputy Leader of the Opposition are not simply figments of the wishes of this Assembly. They are actually recognised by the Remuneration Tribunal. The work that is done by the Leader of the Opposition and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition has been recognised by the Remuneration Tribunal and remunerated. Those people have been given extra pay in recognition of the importance and the significance of the job that they do.

Mrs Carnell likes to invent systems for her own sake. She likes to invent what the Westminster system should or should not be: Somehow, because we are small, it is a little bit different from if we are big. I do not think it makes any difference whether there are 17, 75, 750, 22 or 11 members. The principles of the Westminster system are of profound importance, and they are entirely to do with conflict. I actually believe that conflict is amazingly important. Anyone who prattles on with the nonsense of reducing that conflict does not understand the basis of the Westminster system and the roles that parliament has. Anyone who shirks that conflict is refusing to admit that important and profound differences of opinion and ideology have a place in society and must be resolved. We used to resolve them - - -

Mr Moore: Yes, but there are not only two of them. There is a range of them.

MS McRAE: There are two of them of significance, and, no matter what you say, there is no such member in a lower house of parliament from anything other than the two parties. When there is a significant number, maybe there will be a third; but at the end there are always two. In the olden days, people used to get on their horses and charge each other. In more recent times, people get into armies and kill each other. This is an extremely important forum for those differences to be played out. If those differences are not articulated and played out, we are all dishonouring our electorate and dishonouring the profound importance of those issues. If we cannot get up with vigour, and vigorously attack, criticise and scrutinise the alternative view, then we are failing in our job.

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .