Page 1344 - Week 05 - Wednesday, 12 May 1993
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Therefore, it can be viewed that, according to section 125, the Commonwealth does not have the authority to divest itself of that which constitutionally can belong only to it. Section 52 says:
The Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have exclusive power to make laws for the peace, order, and good government of the Commonwealth with respect to -
(i) The seat of government of the Commonwealth ...
Therefore, it can be viewed that, according to section 52, the Parliament has exclusive power to make laws for the seat of government, but it cannot delegate or relinquish that power without a Commonwealth referendum.
Indeed, a similar situation could well apply under the surrender and acceptance Acts of 1909. These Acts define the terms and rights under which the New South Wales Government, the New South Wales people, relinquished or surrendered the land and the Commonwealth Government acquired the land of the ACT. It could be viewed that, under the special meaning assigned to the word "surrender", the New South Wales people should have been consulted by a referendum when a change of use - self-government for the ACT - was proposed. I have spoken of the 1978 referendum, in which 70 per cent of people opposed this State-like form of government. It could well be held constitutionally that, as the Government asked and the people answered, that answer is constitutionally binding. It should be tested. I think that that answers the question: Should self-government be abolished?
Let me turn to the question: Can self-government be abolished and replaced with a Canberra city council? There is no question any more that self-government can be abolished. This was confirmed by a senior Commonwealth Government Cabinet Minister, Ros Kelly. I quote from the Canberra Times:
The Member for Canberra and the Minister for the Environment, Ros Kelly, doubted Canberra people wanted to change the system of self-government ... "But if the Assembly came to us and said they don't want those -
and she was referring to the functions of education, health and policing -
they want to hand them back to the federal government, well obviously we'd have a look at that." ... The Government would consider taking over health and education -
and naturally policing -
if the assembly wanted to hand back responsibility for those areas ...
So there is no question about whether self-government can be abolished. The Federal Government have acknowledged that indeed it can be. (Extension of time granted) Madam Speaker, Ros Kelly speaks with the authority of a Commonwealth Government Minister. She did not speak but merely voted in the Federal debates of 1990 and 1991 that followed on from the findings and recommendation of a joint committee that reviewed the first 1989 ACT election debacle. In the House of Representatives it was left to John Langmore to carry the can.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .