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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1996 Week 11 Hansard (25 September) . . Page.. 3416 ..

MS FOLLETT (5.19), in reply: Mr Speaker, speaking briefly in reply, I would like to thank members for their indication of support for this motion. I ask for leave, Mr Speaker, to table the Alert Digest of the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills, No. 7 of 1996, and the article I quoted from the Bulletin of 1 October 1996.

Leave granted.

MS FOLLETT: Thank you, Mr Speaker and members. I believe that the issues have been very well covered, Mr Speaker, but I would like to respond to a couple of points that Mr Osborne made.

The first thing I would like to say is that we all have a conscience. He is not unique in that regard. Many of us, indeed, may be Christians. He is not unique in that regard either. We all have issues that we hold dear, issues upon which we will not budge; but I think we have to accept that the fundamental issue of democracy on this occasion has to override our own personal pet issues. That is the way I see this motion. I said in my earlier speech that the motion I have moved has nothing to do with euthanasia. We all have a different view on that. We all know that. We have canvassed it many times, and we will do so again. It is not to do with euthanasia. It is to do with the fundamental principle of democracy.

Mr Osborne made the very valid point that the majority of Canberrans probably still do not want us, and I agree. Imagine how not just the majority of Canberrans but all Canberrans would feel if they were to be supporting and paying for a parliament of 17 elected representatives whose work could be overturned at any time in another parliament which they are also paying to support. I think you would find that that grumbling discontent with self-government could well turn into outright hostility, and who would blame them? I would feel the same way myself. It would be clearly a farcical situation if we had one level of parliament in this Territory making laws for the Territory which were then overturned by the Federal Parliament. I think people's total disenchantment would be absolutely certain.

Mr Osborne also said that he does not understand how the Federal Government can retain control of an issue like censorship but not an issue like euthanasia. I think history will reveal the answer to that. The fact is that we were never asked what the Federal Government might retain control of. They decided that for themselves and without any input whatsoever from the people of this Territory. Mr Speaker, you will recall, as do I, that at the time that self-government was introduced into the Territory the previous advisory body had been abolished some time beforehand. There was no elected representative for this Territory who could have a say on what form the self-government Act took or on what powers the Commonwealth retained. I think we should not hold up one exercise in non-democracy as the model, because it was clearly a great disadvantage to the people of the Territory that they did not have a say in the piece of legislation which has become our constitution. It is still extraordinarily difficult for them to have a say when you bear in mind that the Territory currently has only three members of the House of Representatives - that shortly will be two - and two senators to represent us. Clearly, their views and their opinions will not hold sway in a parliament the size of the Federal one.

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