Page 3181 - Week 10 - Thursday, 16 September 1993
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MR HUMPHRIES (11.35): Madam Speaker, the Opposition is able to indicate its support for the motion Ms Follett moved yesterday in the Assembly. I think it is appropriate for us to examine the circumstances in which such a power might be exercised by the Commonwealth Government and where the ACT Assembly would, in turn, exercise its capacity to consent to such a power being exercised by the Commonwealth Government.
What we have here is the Commonwealth using its powers under section 122 of the Constitution to, in effect, make laws for the government of the Territory. This is a controversial section in some respects. I understand, for example, that Mr Stevenson's party has argued that this section in effect prevents the Commonwealth Government from letting anyone else make laws for the government of the ACT. He may have something to say about this motion later; I do not know. Certainly, the Commonwealth has an overriding power to make laws for the government of this Territory, and that power has been in part delegated, if you like, to the ACT Legislative Assembly and is now being exercised by this parliament.
The Commonwealth proposes to create legislation in respect of agricultural and veterinary chemicals for the whole of Australia. It proposes to do so on the basis of the 1990 Premiers Conference, and it wishes to do so with the consent of the other jurisdictions, the States and the Territories. The ACT was represented at that conference and was part of the process of agreeing to that national scheme. It is not the first time a national scheme has been introduced on this basis - the national heavy vehicle registration scheme, I understand, is another example of where this has occurred - and it will not, I have no doubt at all, be the last case in which the Commonwealth exercises its power under this section as a central pillar on which other States can take part in the national scheme.
There are, of course, drawbacks. One drawback is the one that applies to any circumstance where the Assembly agrees to be part of a national scheme. We vacate some of our freedom to make laws in respect of the Territory's special circumstances, which we might, on careful reflection, decide would be appropriate. We agree to be part of a national scheme here which might, on some future occasions, be convenient for the ACT. I suspect that we would say that, in the long term, there is a greater convenience in not having to do our own agricultural and veterinary chemicals processing and authorisation and permission process. It is more convenient for us to have that done by some other body, in this case a Commonwealth body. But there are still going to be occasions where schemes of this kind will come a cropper because they conflict with the wishes of some element of the ACT community, and we will be expected to explain on those occasions why it is that we have handed away our power to regulate these matters in and for the ACT.
Another drawback in this particular case is that the central pillar on which this new scheme will rest is legislation made by the Commonwealth for the ACT specifically. As I understand the scheme, other States will be able to participate by having their capacity to legislate in this matter limited by reference to the law made in respect of the ACT. They will all join in with the ACT scheme by virtue of that law having been made. That means that the ACT withdrawing would cause the collapse of the whole scheme. It is much harder for us to get out of this arrangement than it would be, for example, for New South Wales or Victoria.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .