Page 5113 - Week 17 - Wednesday, 12 December 1990
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Assembly that the self-government Act is still the responsibility of the Federal Government. It was drafted by the Federal Government. It is its intentions in that drafting that we have called into question in this whole debate.
It seems absolutely abundantly clear to most members that the correct course of action is to go and ask the Commonwealth what it thinks of it and, indeed, how it expects that part of the self-government Act to operate. What was its intention in drafting it? On 21 November Mr Humphries made exactly that point. Mr Humphries said:
We cannot continue to debate across the chamber what the section in particular of the self-government Act actually means, because it will be a continuing source of problems. I think we should agree to settle the issue, and the mechanism chosen -
which was to refer it to the Federal Government -
is by far the most appropriate means.
So other members opposite - not just those on the Administration and Procedures Committee - have quite clearly seen it as the correct course of action to go to the Commonwealth and ask them what they think; but, of course, Mr Kaine knows better than everyone in this Assembly. Mr Kaine wants to get another opinion first. Mr Kaine seeks to make a further delaying tactic. Mr Kaine seeks desperately to get an opinion that agrees with his own before he goes to the people whose opinion really does matter.
It is a disgraceful reaction on his part. Mr Deputy Speaker, I would ask you to contrast it with Mr Kaine's actions, for instance, in regard to the fifth and sixth ministries. Again, this is a matter in the self-government Act, the selfsame Act for which the Commonwealth has responsibility; the selfsame Act in which this Assembly required that a change be made. The motion on the additional ministries was put in this Assembly and was passed. I did not agree with it, but I do absolutely agree that that motion should have been forwarded to the Federal Parliament forthwith and acted upon by it. That is my view. Contrast that with the carriage by Mr Kaine of this matter of private members' business.
Contrast also Mr Collaery's blatherings this morning about the Lakes (Amendment) Bill. Mr Collaery got up this morning and said, "Oh, this is a matter that falls within Commonwealth jurisdiction", despite the fact that he had had three months to think up a better excuse than that. They were the grounds upon which he stood this morning. So, quite clearly, we cannot proceed with it until we have the Commonwealth's view. Quite clearly, we must first go to the Commonwealth and ask what they intend to do about
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .