Page 3185 - Week 10 - Thursday, 16 September 1993
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MR TEMPORARY DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, Mr Moore, but I have just got some advice from the Clerk that Mr Stevenson is well within his rights.
MR STEVENSON: Thank you very much, Mr Temporary Deputy Speaker. I think it highlights just how deplorable it is that in a discussion on freedom of speech you have a situation where Mr Moore and Mr Berry and others make such claims.
Let me move on to another point, now that we have gotten through that. Let us assume that the Assembly was constitutional, and we can certainly assume that while it operates. After all, something can be unconstitutional but it can continue until the court so rules, and it would seem to be the case that this nonsense, this bogus Assembly, will continue until the High Court finally gets its act together. On the general principle of whether the ACT and the States should make laws for the ACT and the States or whether that should be done by the Federal Government, I have risen in this Assembly before and said that this Assembly should make the laws for the people of the ACT. It is perfectly allowable to go to conferences with other States and the Commonwealth and make agreements as to what types of laws will be introduced, but I do not believe for a moment that the power should be given over to the Commonwealth or that the power should be given away. We should make the agreement. If we want to introduce various Bills within this Assembly for the people of the ACT, that is one situation. It should be done by the Assembly.
The Commonwealth Government should never make a law that can be made by a State or a Territory. A State or a Territory should never make a law that can be practically and competently made and enforced by a local council, which is what most people in Canberra believe this Assembly should be. A local council should never make a law that can be competently and practically made by a local precinct group, and that is something else that many people in Canberra are looking forward to.
Mr Connolly: We want an additional tier of government!
MR STEVENSON: What we need is not so much additional spheres of government but smaller government at grassroots level. When Mr Connolly talks about additional spheres of government, it is amazing that the Labor Party around Australia are saying, "Let us get rid of the States", as Mr Hawke did in the 1979 Boyer lectures; but, when they had the chance of jumping into ACT self-government, they could not get their feet wet quickly enough.
MS FOLLETT (Chief Minister and Treasurer) (11.55), in reply: I thank the Liberals and Mr Moore for their indication of support for this motion. I am not sure whether Mr Stevenson is supporting it or not. I did not bring the penetrometer with me today, but I thank him for his remarks anyway.
There are a few matters I would like to add to what I said in moving this motion yesterday. I think members generally understand that this is an important national reform. It is probably more important for other States than it is for the ACT, because we do not have an extensive agricultural industry; but I am sure that members would be aware of the importance of having national standards, national regulation, for these kinds of chemicals. Information on the effects of some of these chemicals has improved. I am sure that there are many
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .