Page 4040 - Week 13 - Thursday, 10 November 1994

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .


In other words, Madam Speaker, the majority of the committee determined that CIR is appropriate to investigate further and to do properly - and I emphasise "to do properly". The one thing that does appear inappropriate to us is to have a pretend CIR.

Madam Speaker, recommendation 2 states:

The Committee recommends that the Standing Committee on Administration and Procedures examine and report to the Assembly on what changes to Standing Orders 100 and 174 would be required in order to substantially increase public access to the proceedings of the Assembly.

Of course, that recommendation is based on much of the submission that you, Madam Speaker, presented to the committee.

Recommendation 3 sets out what the majority of members of the committee believe that it would be appropriate to incorporate in a full investigation by a committee of the Assembly. It would have suited us better had Mrs Carnell been able to bring this Bill, or even the issue, to the Assembly earlier so that the committee of this Assembly would have had more time to study it. Unfortunately, the timing of Mrs Carnell's Bill meant that we had a choice: Either look at it and see whether there was anything in the idea worth pursuing - and that is the stance that the committee has taken - or just reject it out of hand. Members of the committee believe that there are some great benefits in this idea and that it is appropriate for us to explore it further and to get it right.

Madam Speaker, we are talking about a fundamental change to the way in which we operate our democracy. It is interesting that on many occasions Mr Cornwell, in particular, and other Liberals have talked about the ACT being turned into a social laboratory. They have used this as a method of dealing with issues that I have raised, two of which are drug law reform and euthanasia. The process that we are suggesting is a similar process to those that this Assembly has agreed to go through on those issues. It is an extensive amount of work in terms of the committees, public participation and then continuing the process in the Assembly.

The third recommendation sets out what the committee ought to consider as part of its terms of reference. It is not meant to include the mechanical parts of the terms of reference for the issues that ought to be included. They include the constitutional limitations, if any, which will affect the adoption of CIR in the ACT. We certainly know that our constitutional limit, in as far as our self-government Act is our constitution, prevents us from having any form of binding referenda or binding ourselves in terms of referenda. A legal opinion on that issue is offered as an appendix to this committee's report. This was raised by the ACT Electoral Commissioner. That was why I used the term "pretend CIR". Everywhere we see CIR talked about, it is talked about as binding. Mr Stevenson will agree that CIR is about a binding referendum. He has done more work on this issue than anybody else in the Assembly. Indeed, Mr Stevenson's Bill sets up a binding referendum. This is what he seeks to achieve. Unfortunately, that simply is not possible under the self-government Act.


Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .