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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 2 Hansard (1 March) . . Page.. 431 ..

MR HUMPHRIES (continuing):

democratic, elected parliaments - would do so only in very strictly limited circumstances. Believe me, the temptation on the part of some people to intervene in the affairs of places like the Australian Capital Territory is considerable. In many senses we are not viewed favourably by other citizens in this country. The ACT is seen by a great many Australians as a privileged, pampered enclave, and a move to override the laws of the ACT, by itself, would not be seen as a move that would be likely to lose any Federal government an election. I think therefore that we have to invite Federal intervention in the affairs of any State only in the most carefully considered circumstances.

I concede the argument put forward by Ms Tucker that there may well be a head of power - specifically the foreign affairs power - to intervene in these circumstances because of treaties which the Commonwealth Government has signed. But we need to ask ourselves where all that ends. There are approximately 920 active treaties to which Australia is presently a party. They range over a vast number of areas - agriculture, trade, legal proceedings, conciliation and arbitration, working conditions, cultural and education matters, drugs, energy, health matters, heritage. The list is endless. It goes on and on. On any one of those areas potentially the Commonwealth Government/Parliament has a power to intervene against citizens elsewhere in Australia who have made decisions by the democratic process to do certain things.

Let us not forget that if such powers are exercised on a regular basis any one of us is going to be in a position to say, "We disagree with the way in which that power is exercised". We are all going to be in that position sooner or later if such powers are exercised on a frequent basis. I dare say that at some point we have all been in a position of saying, "I wish they had not done that".

We might debate whether it is appropriate to intervene in the case of mandatory sentencing laws. We could have a very spirited debate about that. But I submit to this Assembly that our debate today is not about mandatory sentencing laws; it is about the power of another parliament, albeit the national parliament, to override the democratic decisions made by other elected Australian parliaments.

Mr Stanhope advanced a view that all thinking Australians would be opposed to legislation of this kind, and it would be axiomatic that people would want to take some steps to stop this from happening. I have to say that I do not think that that is the case. I note the very divided views held, even within the Australian Labor Party, not about this issue of mandatory sentencing necessarily but about intervention in the affairs of the Northern Territory and Western Australia premised on a problem, so-called, with mandatory sentencing. I am quoting from a news report on the ABC.

Ms Tucker: Just deal with the issues, Gary.

MR HUMPHRIES: I am dealing with the issues, Ms Tucker. I raise this issue because Mr Stanhope said that all Australians outside Western Australia and the Northern Territory think this is a good idea and there is a strong popular basis on which to act, suggesting that if enough Australians believe this should happen then whatever rules or conventions are in place about non-intervention can go to one side. What Labor leaders have said about this is interesting. Let me quote from this news report. The Federal Opposition Leader, Mr Beazley, said:

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