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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 2 Hansard (1 March) . . Page.. 459 ..

MR STEFANIAK (continuing):

I know the Chief Minister does not like mandatory sentencing. I know the Chief Minister has some views on sentencing which would not see very many people at all go to gaol. We have some very different views on sentencing.

Mr Berry: She likes move-on powers.

MR STEFANIAK: I am glad to hear that, Wayne, because that is a very practical power. But the Chief Minister has argued a principle here - just as my colleague Mr Humphries, who has very strong views on euthanasia, argued a similar principle. His views - and I largely support his views on that particular point - on euthanasia are that the Commonwealth should not override the sovereign power of the States and Territories in relation to legislation desired by citizens and passed by their parliaments. Mr Humphries' views on euthanasia are quite well known, as I think are mine. I fully endorse that principle.

Similarly, with shooting galleries, Mr Osborne has raised the question of whether the Commonwealth can step in and say to the ACT, Victoria or New South Wales, "No, you can't have shooting galleries". It might be a bit easier for the Commonwealth to override the powers of the ACT and the Northern Territory, but it would be more difficult to do that in Victoria or New South Wales. Whilst I have some grave reservations about shooting galleries - in fact, I think the idea is quite stupid - this parliament, small though it may be, has the right to make laws for the benefit of its citizens without the Commonwealth overriding them.

It is up to the people of a territory or a state to tell the Government or the members of parliament at each election whether they approve of those policies or not. If a majority of people do not approve, then out the government goes. The people of Western Australia and the Northern Territory may well be in favour of these laws. They may need a lot of convincing. Ms Tucker said that she lived in the Territory. Given her strong feeling on this issue, perhaps she should get her friends mobilised to oppose these laws, to change these laws. But is it appropriate for someone else to tell a sovereign democratic state - and I stress the word "democratic" - to change its laws?

I refer to page 3 of the Chief Minister's letter dated 3 November 1999. I wonder why people have not written to the Senate inquiry before now in relation to this issue. This is an issue which raises a lot of views, and people on both sides of the question feel very passionately. I wonder why Ms Tucker or anyone else in the Assembly who felt strongly about this issue did not make a submission to the Senate inquiry. Be that as it may, I think the Chief Minister's comments on page 3 are worth mentioning. Mrs Carnell states:

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