Page 1382 - Week 05 - Wednesday, 12 May 1993
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Mr Stevenson: No, it is more than that. Have you done the polls? You have had four years.
MR CORNWELL: I am talking of a full-blown referendum, not a Dennis poll, where you go out and talk to a few people.
Mr Stevenson: No; I asked: Have you done them?
MR CORNWELL: It is absolutely absurd to suggest that. This is the definitive vote on that, and they managed 6 per cent. I say no more.
MS ELLIS (4.38): Madam Speaker, I want to make only a couple of very brief points, and they are points that need to be made to bring this debate back to some central consideration. When self-government was imposed on this Territory by the Federal Government, as we all acknowledge that it was, it was my opinion, as an observer of the government system in the ACT, that it would take probably three periods of government for the system to settle down - for the community to get used to having its own self-governing body, for the self-governing body to get used to using the community and interacting with it, and for the bureaucracy to get used to its role in the new structure. I also predicted, unfortunately correctly and in a fairly private manner, that the First Assembly would be a difficult one.
Mr Moore: What a lovely word.
MS ELLIS: I used that word long before it was proven to be inadequate. The reason for that, of course, was that, in this learning curve that all sectors of the community had to face, it also had to learn how to vote in its own representatives. It played around with that in that First Assembly, and we know that.
As for the propositions being put forward by Mrs Carnell, whether they be accurately reflected as a call for a city council or in another way, the thing that is upsetting me tremendously is that the comments made have ripped open the whole question of whether or not we self-govern, how we self-govern, at what level we self-govern, and with what responsibility we self-govern. It is not parliamentary reform in a sensible way. It is ripping open all of that residue of uncertainty out there in the community, and for what purpose?
All that this will do is push back what I believe to be the very important progress the movement to self-government has made in this Territory. I think it is to be condemned for that very reason. It is a retrograde step that I do not believe anybody, other than maybe Mr Stevenson, could have possibly considered taking in this chamber. In the short period I have been here, along with a number of other people, including Mrs Carnell, even I have learnt that this is a very valuable institution.
Mr Moore: She has too. Look how she has been backing down today.
MS ELLIS: I would doubt it. The community is now getting used to it. It is now starting to applaud the work that is done, the interaction that occurs, and the outcomes that are possible. Why on earth put all of that into question and put it in danger for the sake of some stupid debate at some stupid community level about whether or not we should have self-government? It is here, and I am afraid that the only result that has been reached by Mrs Carnell's comments is to open up that whole debate. If you want to reform parliament, call it parliamentary reform and do it, but do not do it in this way.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .