Summitry judgment
published: Saturday | January 11, 2003
THE EDITOR, Sir:
WEDNESDAY'S EDITORIAL, 'Protest by disruption', has sent me some mixed signals. It correctly warns that "the potential of the new power balance in Parliament may be too valuable to sacrifice for cheap political gain." But in the very same paragraph you express the hope that public protest "...will not derail the Vale Royal summitry that has started since the October General Election." I think this so-called summit is indeed a royal humbug.
It is about time that we all acknowledge Parliament, in particular the House of Representatives, as the only political summit recognised by the Constitution. 'Summitry judgment' - unofficial discussions and decision-making between self-appointed representatives of the two major political parties - cannot and must not take precedence over deliberations of the House of Representatives, to which all elected members, the public and the media have access.
The people have elected a House of Representatives to which the Cabinet, the Prime Minister and the Executive are answerable; and private conversations at Vale Royal, devoid of constitutional status or authority and without official records of proceedings, should not be accorded the type of recognition that their proponents are seeking and, unfortunately, getting from some respectable quarters.
The new Speaker of the House has already stated his intention to revive and increase respect for the discipline and authority of the House over which he presides. He might well begin by advising all its members to bring discussion of the nation's business to the place where it lawfully and properly belongs.
