Page 4371 - Week 14 - Wednesday, 8 December 1993
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Mr Lamont: So when we endorse this Assembly as the governing body, you will accept that?
MR STEVENSON: Mr Lamont asks whether, when the members of this Assembly endorse this Assembly as being legal, I will accept it. I have mentioned about 3,927 times in this Assembly that the first requirement I have for anything is that it accord with the Commonwealth Constitution. When Mr Lamont has the Constitution put to the people of Australia and they have a vote to change the various sections that make this Assembly - and I would be the last person to refer to it as a mickey mouse Assembly - legal, then I will agree with it; but not before.
I seek leave to withdraw my earlier amendment and to move the revised amendment that has been circulated in my name.
Leave granted.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
MR STEVENSON: I move the following amendment:
After paragraph (1), insert the following paragraph:
"(1A) proposals for murals be submitted for approval before acceptance and that the themes and content of murals be non-political.".
I move this amendment because the Liberal amendments would make my earlier amendment redundant.
MR MOORE (11.45): I have picked up House of Representatives Practice, which has a copy of the Constitution in the back, to follow up Mr Stevenson's speech. I do not have quite enough time, but I find it interesting that he has just moved an amendment that suggests that the themes and content of murals be non-political. It seems to me that that in itself would be in breach of the Constitution in terms of freedom of speech. There has been a series of rulings - - -
Mr Stevenson: Not on public assets.
MR MOORE: Mr Stevenson interjects, "Not on public assets". As far as I am concerned, it would be a clear breach of the Constitution, which provides for freedom of speech. It seems to me, Madam Speaker, that it raises an issue about interpretation of specific areas in the Constitution. There is always more than one way to read something. In fact, that is one of the major reasons for the existence of the High Court. Of course, Mr Stevenson does not seem to accept that the High Court has a right to interpret the Constitution. It will continue to do so. Most of us accept that that is the system that we have and we respect that, even when a ruling of the High Court does not fit in with what we would like to see.
I come back to the substance of the motion that Ms Szuty has put to the Assembly today. A very sensible and rational motion it is, I must say. I am quite pleased to have the opportunity to be able to support that motion. Madam Speaker, I would like to give a small example of something that I found particularly interesting.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .