Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .
Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 3 Hansard (9 April) . . Page.. 797 ..
MRS LITTLEWOOD (continuing):
The present funding allocation for road maintenance grossly underestimated the ACT's needs ...
... ... ...
By the time of self-government the ACT acquired an ageing stock of grandiose roads which have now proven to be more show than substance with considerable arrears in maintenance.
... ... ...
Meeting the Commonwealth's special planning requirements, for instance, added about $3m to the cost of the new magistrates court building and caused lengthy delays ...
Those are some of the things we have inherited from the Federal Parliament. I am not suggesting that we want a hand-out, but the national capital aspect of Canberra needs to be recognised by the Feds and appropriate financial arrangements put in place. It is not the duty of Canberra taxpayers to fund the national capital. Our responsibility is to fund our city of Canberra. There are two very different aspects of our city, and that should not be forgotten. All I want is a fair go for the people of Canberra and for my electorate. While I fully support the concept that we Canberrans accept our responsibility to develop our city, we need to be given a fair go.
In more recent times, Canberra has been subjected to a big brother, paternalistic approach by the Federal Parliament. Look at the Andrews Bill. The passing of this Bill by our Federal colleagues has, in effect, gagged the people of Canberra. We now do not have a voice on this very important issue of euthanasia. It had been my intention to implement a referendum on euthanasia. I would like to have heard what the people of Canberra had to say, but now it does not matter. We will not have a voice. Mr Speaker, I refer you to comments from the Senate Standing Committee on the Scrutiny of Bills in regard to the Andrews Bill. It stated:
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.
... ... ...
This threatens the certainty which ought exist for its citizens when any one or more of the Territories passes valid law.
The Commonwealth Parliament, while undoubtedly having the power to pass this bill, would, by so doing, create a situation where some Australians are treated in a way different from other citizens because it curtails their present right to self-government in circumstances where, were they to live in the States, it could not do so.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .