Page 2844 - Week 10 - Wednesday, 15 August 1990
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
It is an opportunity for this house to assert its view of its supremacy and its legislative powers. The Attorney-General, in his refutation of this motion, suggests that any standing order would be ineffective because it is contrary to section 65 of the self-government Act.
We do not accept the opinion that has been tendered before this house on the effect of section 65 of that Act. We have repeatedly said that this is an issue of such fundamental significance to this house that before we would accept a definitive legal view it is necessary to obtain the views of senior independent counsel. On an issue on which the Attorney-General has previously clearly expressed himself, we are not prepared, despite the learning and standing of the law officer concerned, to accept that the view of an officer of the Executive Government ought to determine the future course of this Assembly.
We are standing in the tradition of the parliament. Members opposite have, on a number of occasions, expressed opinions that this Assembly is continuing a parliamentary tradition. You, Mr Speaker, have recently returned from a Commonwealth Parliamentary Association function where the traditions of Commonwealth parliaments are always to the fore. We are standing in the tradition for which our English parliamentary forebears fought a revolution and executed a king - that is, that the parliament has control of the business of the state, that the parliament determines its procedure, that the parliament is the forum at which public debate occurs, and that public debate occurs through the forums of the parliament, through Bills and motions.
The reading of section 65 of the self-government Act, coincidentally, was introduced at the time of the health and education Bills but was not used to block the private member's Bill of Mr Kaine, when he was Leader of the Opposition, to reverse the rather strange and erratic decision on fluoride. It was not used in relation to Mr Stefaniak's motions on the move-on powers. It had not previously been hinted at by any person in this parliament. What an extraordinary tactic to block debate on a fundamental question that is before the Canberra community - the schools issue. Mr Berry very clearly pointed out the political motives behind this attempt to gag debate.
We in the Opposition are putting forward an opportunity for this Assembly to assert its view of its ability to pass laws in the ordinary tradition of parliamentary government. We are quite confident that the proper interpretation of section 65 of the self-government Act is that it would be read down to be consistent with this clearer ruling in the standing orders.
We are quite confident that, should the Government accept the view that senior counsel's advice needs to be sought, it will back that view up. But of fundamental importance
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .