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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 3 Hansard (9 April) . . Page.. 745 ..

MR MOORE (continuing):

As far as this religious zealotry goes, I do not think it could have been put better than it was put by Crispin Hull in his very moving article in the Canberra Times last Saturday, 5 April, where he summed up the view of others with the words:

It would be so nice to have the childish, religious certainty of the Lyons Forum MPs.

There are some other very important issues that I know members of this house agree on, including the issue of Territory rights. We have now seen from both houses of the Federal Parliament a Federal mistreatment of the Territories. I would like to emphasise that it was not by all members, but by a majority of members of both houses. It reinforces the anti-self-government sentiment that was so widespread in this Territory. Self-government was not about allowing this Territory the right to make its own decisions for its own people; it was about, as we all feared, ensuring that the Federal Government could go about cutting funds to the Territory. That is what it has reinforced, and I think that is a great disappointment.

But it is worse than that because it adds an uncertainty for future policy in the ACT and the Northern Territory, for example, on X-rated videos, and I know that there has been a recent decision on that in the Federal Cabinet. In the Northern Territory and the Australian Capital Territory, the governments and the assemblies no longer have 100 per cent certainty about managing Territory affairs. We simply never know when a member of the Federal Parliament, a backbench member, perhaps, a private member or a government, will say, "No, I do not think I like that", perhaps for some moral reason, perhaps for some personal reason, and will go about overturning Territory legislation.

There is a great irony in this for people who live in the Northern Territory because, as I understand it, they are approaching statehood. What happens to their legislation if they are given statehood?

Mr Berry: Statehood, but.

MR MOORE: As Mr Berry interjects, it will be statehood, except for this particular issue, possibly. So it will be statehood that is not really statehood. It will be Clayton's statehood, as we have a form of Clayton's self-government, demonstrated by this high-handed action of the Federal Parliament.

It continues to get worse, because there is no doubt that the Andrews Bill has raised uncertainty about the Medical Treatment Act 1994, the passive euthanasia Act, and it seems to me that that uncertainty can be resolved only in court. On the one hand, I suppose it is possible for our Attorney-General, Mr Humphries, to go to the High Court and say, "Will you resolve this issue for us? Will the court make a decision and tell us whether the Andrews Bill has interfered with our right to adequate pain relief and to the issues associated there?". The cost of doing that would be, I presume, quite extraordinary, and perhaps we are going to have to wait until such time as an action is taken, at which time no doubt this Government would have to be involved as well.

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