Page 1296 - Week 05 - Thursday, 26 April 1990
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
resolutions on this matter, provides the final say to the Governor-General. Clearly, such decisions should rest with those directly responsible to the people of the ACT. There is now no doubt, of course, that we in this place fit into that category.
We looked at the reserve powers of the Commonwealth Government and the Governor-General and concentrated particularly on the role of the Governor-General. It was considered that there were some areas where he had powers that went beyond those applying to other States or Territories. For example, the self-government Act does not require the Governor-General to consult with the Assembly or any of its members if he or she proposes to dissolve the Assembly. It would seem logical that before taking that final step to dissolve the Assembly the Governor-General should be required to at least consult with representatives from the Assembly. Who those representatives should be will depend on the circumstances that are applying at the time and it will be up to the judgment of the Governor-General as to who should be consulted. I believe that a condemned person should at least be allowed to put a case before the axe falls, if only because it is important to ensure that the principle of natural justice has been applied.
We looked very briefly at the requirement for two planning authorities. We did make a recommendation in relation to the need to provide a clear definition of what was of national significance in the planning and land management Act. My own view is that, if this is not done, there is a perfect opportunity for lawyers to make a living out of arguing whether a planning issue falls within the responsibilities of the Territory's planning legislation or that administered by the National Capital Planning Authority.
It was also considered important that, while this legislation provided for the National Capital Planning Authority to consult with the Territory Planning Authority, the latter was a statutory authority and there was no clearly defined statutory requirement for the Federal authority to discuss planning issues with the ACT Government or the Assembly.
I will move on to financial arrangements with the Commonwealth. I do not think there is one person in this chamber who believes that we, in the ACT, have been given a fair deal on the transitional financial arrangements between the ACT and the Federal Government. It may be that, unless some improvement takes place in the near future, we may have to start looking at ways in which we, in the ACT, can exert some pressure on the Federal Government to pull its weight here. While we may not be able to cut off their power and water, I am sure we could find some more subtle ways to send a quiet message to those on Capital Hill. The committee has therefore recommended a further year of transitional funding and a formal financial
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .