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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1996 Week 11 Hansard (25 September) . . Page.. 3411 ..

MR HUMPHRIES (continuing):

Let me say two things to them. First of all, on a practical level, I do not believe the Assembly is going to pass legislation to effect what Mr Andrews fears will come to pass, so I think his legislation is unnecessary in the case of the ACT, at the very least. If a certain member, for example, sees legislation come forward, using this prerogative, to ban the playing of football in the Territory, he cannot then turn around and say, "It is outrageous. It is most unacceptable that the Federal Parliament should legislate in respect of the ACT", because the precedent is established and we have lost that final element of sovereignty which is so important to the way in which this Territory has operated since 1989.

It is true, Mr Speaker, that the Commonwealth Parliament does retain, at least to the best of my observation of the relevant constitutional law, the constitutional capacity to legislate over the heads of the parliaments it has created in those three jurisdictions. It does have that capacity. But it has chosen, up until now, to place restrictions in advance, through the schedule to the self-government Act to which Ms Follett referred, on the areas in which it believed there ought to be some restriction. It lined off those areas where it felt it ought to retain that power. In this case it is proposing a specific action in a specific area designed to meet a specific decision with which it does not agree. The point, of course, is that if we are self-governing we have to make those decisions. If necessary, we have to make those mistakes. That is our decision to make, not the decision of the Federal Parliament. I commend the motion that has been put to the house.

MR MOORE (4.58): Mr Speaker, I rise to support this motion, but not in the sense that I have been responsible for introducing into this Assembly on two occasions legislation involving euthanasia. Ms Follett correctly pointed out that that is not the issue. Such an issue ought to be decided by the Assembly. My legislation was rejected by this Assembly. I accepted that. I accepted that it was the appropriate role of the Assembly to do so. That is the fundamental issue that is raised in this Alert Digest of the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills. I think the Senate committee reflects the majority view of the Assembly when it states:

The three Assemblies are all elected on a universal adult franchise. Accordingly, they operate within democracies. This bill seeks to take away from the people living within those democracies an ability they now have to elect an assembly with power to legislate about a matter of great moment.

It is not just a matter of great moment, because Ms Follett has spoken on a series of other issues. Mr Speaker, if this legislation goes through the Federal Parliament it will be a great stunt opportunity for private members to look at the Territories and say, "What is it that the Territories are doing that I can reject?". It will happen on both sides of the house. Some of them will be conservative; some of them will be the opposite.

There will be legislation to restrict power in terms of the way we spend our money. There will be legislation to restrict power in terms of the issues that Ms Follett raised. We have before us the issue of surrogacy about which a great deal of debate has gone on.

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