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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 8 Hansard (26 August) . . Page.. 2420 ..

MR HUMPHRIES (continuing):

I want to draw a parallel between this situation and the situation with euthanasia. The argument that has been put forward in respect of perpetual leases goes like this: The Assembly opposes perpetual leases, and the Government is trying to give the Assembly the power to create perpetual leases; therefore, the Government should be condemned for trying to give the Assembly the power to do something it does not want to do. If for "perpetual leases" you substitute "euthanasia", then you have a very interesting argument. The Assembly opposes euthanasia. That was the case the last time we took a vote on the subject. The Government is trying to give the Assembly the power to legislate for euthanasia. That is what Kate Carnell and I were arguing for when we went to the Federal Parliament. Therefore, the Government should be condemned for trying to give the Assembly the power to do something it does not want to do. Is that not consistent?

Mr Berry: No. You are wrong, Gary. You are sunk by your own argument.

MR HUMPHRIES: I think Mr Berry realises that there is a problem with the consistency of his argument. In the correspondence that Kate Carnell and I had with the Federal Government and in the meeting I had with Warwick Smith on 27 June, I never imagined at any stage that the Legislative Assembly would have concerns about our trying to bring the power to deal with matters affecting the lives of members of this community back to the Legislative Assembly. In fact, I would operate on the prima facie basis that whatever I sought to bring back to this Assembly as a power for this Assembly was in the interests of the ACT and in accordance with the wishes of the members of this Assembly.

Can anyone here tell me why it is that we would not want to exercise power over these matters? Let us forget 999-year leases for a moment. Should the Legislative Assembly not have the power to determine the details of the leasehold system, subject to that Federal constitutional requirement for there to be leasehold? Should it not have that power? Surely the answer is that it should. If we are to have that power, then I ask what possible objection there can be to the Chief Minister or I or any other member of this Government going to the Federal Government and saying, "Give that power back to the elected representatives of the ACT community. We are elected by this community. You Federal representatives are not". We are a fairly democratic institution. We have a better electoral system than the Federal Parliament uses, I would argue. Therefore, we deserve the right to be able to make those decisions on behalf of the ACT community and not have people from Wagga, Launceston or Perth making those decisions for us. They are our decisions to make.

I sought that power for the Assembly, and I believe I should not be condemned or censured or removed from office for seeking that power for the Assembly, but rather I should be commended. That is what I think members of this place would normally urge me to be doing. I have sought powers for this Assembly in other places and at other times as well. I had better get this off my chest in case I get another censure motion about this. I have argued with the Federal Government that we should have power over censorship matters. Censorship is a matter which has been reserved for the Federal Parliament under the self-government Act. I have argued that we should have power over censorship.

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