Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .
Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1999 Week 9 Hansard (2 September) . . Page.. 2833 ..
MR HUMPHRIES (continuing):
Government to stand up and make that argument because they know it is an argument which is fundamentally flawed. They know that it is the role of this place to make the final decision about the level of change of use charge levied in the Territory. They know that. They understand that.
He went on to say:
Because that is exactly the logic behind the Government's argument in saying, "You have to implement the report. You have to accept the umpire's finding". Well, Mr Speaker, we are interested in considering this issue further, but we are conscious of the need to make a final decision on the matter.
He was not the only one in the course of that debate who emphasised the supremacy of the Assembly to make decisions in such matters. Ms Tucker also contributed to the debate. She said:
I think this inquiry -
an inquiry by the Assembly into the report of Professor Nicholls -
will also be very useful because I must admit that I found the Nicholls report to be unsatisfactory in a number of respects.
She found it unsatisfactory in a number of respects. Apparently it is all right to find an expert report from an academic at the ANU unsatisfactory in a number of respects, but it is not all right to find something from a particular panel consisting of doctors unsatisfactory in a number of respects.
Mr Corbell was right about one thing: The Assembly does have the final say in these matters. The argument I want to address there is this argument that, by making a decision about the content of a pamphlet, the Assembly is imposing its views on somebody else. Indeed, Mr Speaker, it is imposing its views on somebody else; but, as Mr Kaine observed, that is what the Assembly does every single day of its existence: It imposes its view on somebody else. Why? It is because the members of this place were elected to do precisely that. They were elected to make decisions on a range of issues from the mundane to the extremely important. Mr Speaker, it does not extend just to matters to do with tax or the organisation of the Territory's planning system or anything of a matter that you might describe as being temporal or relating to matters of amenity and quality of life. It also goes to questions of the human body.
For example, it was only a few years ago that members of this place were quick to support the Government's introduction and passage of a Bill concerning female genital mutilation, a Bill which had the effect of regulating what women may do with their bodies. Members of this place were very happy to support that because it was politically correct to do so. The fact is that decisions about such things are grist for the Assembly's mill and it is much too late, it is centuries too late, to claim that the Assembly should not have the power to make decisions in such matters.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .