Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .
Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 2 Hansard (1 March) . . Page.. 460 ..
MR STEFANIAK (continuing):
Commonwealth-State Consultation on Treaties at COAG in 1995, on some broad principles as to when Commonwealth unilateral action might be justified, and what steps might precede its action.
Such an agreement would not necessarily impede the Commonwealth's ultimate capacity to legislate or otherwise implement treaties within the limits of its proper constitutional authority. It would however give all parties, and the Australian community, some reassurance and would open the process to broader participation and scrutiny.
The advantages of this approach in terms of transparency and democracy are obvious; similarly, for preserving good faith and working relationships amongst all jurisdictions. Such an approach is also more consistent with the Commonwealth's efforts since 1996 to improve the consultative arrangements on treaties, which its recent review found to be both successful and well received.
(Extension of time granted)
I think it very appropriate that she has indicated to the Commonwealth that it should only act in the most extreme, urgent and compelling cases. It would be desirable to have some broad guidelines indicating when Commonwealth action might be justified. That, it seems, would be eminently sensible, because one of the biggest criticisms from the States and Territories until 1995-96 was that they were not even consulted on the 900 or so treaties which the Australian Government ratified with the United Nations.
I think that is an eminently sensible submission. Indeed, were that submission taken on board by that committee, we would have a set of guidelines which would greatly assist the Commonwealth on when it is appropriate for it to take unilateral action. That is something that all parties - all eight state and territory parliaments and the ninth parliament, the Commonwealth - might be satisfied with. I think that is the real issue. Mandatory sentencing evokes a lot of passion one way or the other. I think in certain instances a large number of people in this community would see it as desirable. There are clearly a number of people who are outraged by the thought of mandatory sentencing, and certainly by the laws that apply to the Northern Territory and Western Australia.
But, at the end of the day, all eight Australian state and territory jurisdictions are democratically elected parliaments, as is the Commonwealth Parliament. As we are part of a democracy, there is absolutely nothing to stop any member in this house making a submission to the Federal Parliament on this particular issue or on any other issue, regardless of what the government of the day is or what its Chief Minister might send. That is a most appropriate course of action if people feel strongly enough about this particular issue or any other issue.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .