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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 2 Hansard (1 March) . . Page.. 464 ..

MS CARNELL (continuing):

The ACT government submission suggested that there should be some broader principles agreed to by the Commonwealth, States and Territories as to when unilateral action by the Commonwealth might be justified. The submission also suggested that there should be some agreed steps before this occurred. Such an approach has obvious advantages in terms of transparency and democracy. These observations are not disputed by Ms Tucker in her motion.

I move to what the ACT Government's submission did not say. The Government did not attempt to comment on the validly made law of another jurisdiction. As I have stated before in this chamber, I think a large number of people in this Assembly would not support the type of legislation passed in either the Northern Territory or Western Australian parliaments. I for one would certainly not support that legislation. However, the fact is that those laws did go through appropriately elected parliaments, and those parliaments are the appropriate avenue to repeal those laws. It is not for the ACT Government to tell parliaments whether they have made good law or bad law - and I have to say that we would be less than impressed if another government tried to do that to us - that is the task of the people who elected them.

This Assembly has been very vocal about any suggestion that its power to make legislation should be in any way fettered. Specifically, the Assembly has expressed its dissatisfaction with the Federal Government passing anti-euthanasia legislation. Ms Tucker herself has said on that issue, "We are also very disappointed that the Federal Government passed the Andrews Bill, which restricted the ACT's power to legislate on euthanasia".

It is hard to think of an issue that is more about life and death than euthanasia. Many people would suggest the same situation applies to human rights - the right of people to live without pain. Similarly, I suggest there would be some consternation expressed by members of the Assembly if the Commonwealth were to legislate away the right of this Assembly to make legislation concerning supervised injecting places. When there was some indication that the Federal Government may have legislated on heroin trials, we were less than impressed.

It is not appropriate for the ACT Government to comment on legitimately made laws of democratically elected governments. If those laws are flawed, then let them be challenged through the appropriate channels or let the electors decide whether or not they are appropriate. If the Federal Government decides that it does need to legislate in this area, as it has the constitutional ability to do, then it should be a considered legislative response subject to appropriate consultation. They are not just my views; they are the views of many other heads of government - predominantly Labor - in this country. In regard to this legislation, Mr Carr said:

Mr Mike Rann, the Opposition Leader in South Australia, confirmed that he supported the three strikes and you are in legislation at the last election but on the basis that it would apply to adults, not juveniles. Mr Geoff Gallop, the Opposition Leader in Western Australia, has argued strenuously that it is not appropriate for the

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