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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 12 Hansard (11 November) . . Page.. 3932 ..

MR BERRY (continuing):

The other thing I found a little interesting was the Treaties Council. It seems to me, on the face of it at least - and I would be happy to be corrected - that the Treaties Council is some way of heading off the Federal Government's entitlements to enter into international treaties in accordance with the Constitution, a power which was given to them by the States. It strikes me that now some of the States at least, who have been lunching out on some of the world government paranoia over the years, are trying to turn back the clock. The fact of the matter is that the Commonwealth was given the power and authority to deal with international treaties a long time ago, and it is not likely that they would give it up; neither would I want them to. I think it is appropriate that international treaties should be signed on behalf of Australia and not be able to be watered down by individual States.

Can you imagine a situation in Australia where each of the States and Territories was responsible for dealing with international treaties? Can you imagine the different regimes which would operate in relation to a whole range of matters in various States? Can you imagine, say, the difference between Queensland and the ACT; the difference between the ACT and perhaps the Northern Territory; even the difference between Victoria and the Northern Territory on a whole range of issues? Can you imagine what the people of the Northern Territory and the people of Victoria might say about Aboriginals? They would be quite different. So, to suggest that we wind back the clock in relation to those things is wrong, and I must say that the Treaties Council suggests that to me. They do not have any authority.

I think it is quite appropriate for the Commonwealth to consult with the States and Territories, as they advance these issues. I was involved in the signing of our acceptance of arrangements for international treaties in the past and was keen to do so. The practice in the past, as I recall, was that, once the majority of States were on board, the treaties would be signed. I think that is an appropriate course. It is a power that is available to the Commonwealth and one that should persist. I do not think it ought to be watered down. I hope that the Treaties Council is not a way that might further that aim; that is, the aim of watering down our commitment to international treaties, which in many cases are quite appropriate.

Mr Speaker, I go back to my very first words in relation to this report to the Assembly. I think it is timely and appropriate that the Chief Minister does report to the Assembly in the way that she has. I have some difficulties with the way it has been handled.

Mr Humphries: You always do, Wayne; so, what is the difference?

MR BERRY: There should be no surprises that we are different politically, and there should be no surprises for you, Mr Humphries. In fact, you would be very disappointed if I thought the same way as you did.

I did not mention the issue of drugs which, of course, was dealt with in the course of the meeting. The fact of the matter is that John Howard's approach on drugs is unacceptable and is not the way forward as far as the Territories and the States are concerned. But I think we are stuck with it for a while at least, and not much can be done to turn his head around on some of those in-principle issues which we all support, though there are some opportunities for advancement in the announcements that have been made.

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