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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 2 Hansard (1 March) . . Page.. 466 ..

MR KAINE (continuing):

The second difficulty I have with the motion is that it is somewhat conditional. Points two, three and five seem to be soundly based. "These laws are inconsistent with the recommendations of the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody". That is probably true. I think there is an inconsistency. They are inconsistent with the goal of reconciliation with indigenous people. I think the indigenous people might see it that way, so perhaps there is some validity to it. The proposition that they are manifestly unjust could easily be demonstrated and substantiated.

However, I am not even certain that points one and four stand up. Ms Tucker says that the laws "are racially discriminatory in effect". What is she saying? Is she saying that the law is discriminatory or is she saying that the way the law is administered is discriminatory? I suspect that the law is not discriminatory. The way the law is put into effect and administered by the administration of the Northern Territory may be discriminatory, but it is not clear. Ms Tucker did not make it clear what she meant by that assertion.

Finally, point four says that it "may be in breach of a convention or two". Are we going to act on the proposition that a law "may be" in breach, or can we only reasonably act if it is in breach? So I have some difficulties on three counts. Firstly, I am not sure what the objective of this motion is and what Ms Tucker expects to achieve by it. Secondly, I am not convinced that some of the statements in here are factual or valid. Thirdly, it is not addressed to anybody. It is just a motion and nobody will take any action in response to it.

Although we have spent some hours debating this motion, I do not believe it has any practical effect whatsoever. Mr Hargreaves said that we have to send a message. This is not sending a message to anyone because it is not addressed to anyone. I suspect that if Ms Tucker had been more specific and had said, "We resolve to inform the Government of the Northern Territory that we believe this law is unacceptable", that might have achieved something. They might have listened if the Chief Minister had written a letter telling them that. They might not have, but it might have had some practical effect. The way it presently stands, it does not and it will not.

There is no consensus of opinion. Every member who has spoken in the debate has spoken on a different aspect of the problem. Some have talked about the unacceptability of mandatory sentencing. Some have focused on the fact that it is contrary to international treaties. They have asked whether it is appropriate for the Commonwealth to get involved. Some have focused on the fact that our indigenous people have been disadvantaged by this law, but there has been no consensus reached on any of those issues.

It is not often that I agree with the Attorney-General, but I agree with him that we will be doing the nation a great disservice if we seek gradually and randomly to dismantle the Constitution. I think Mr Humphries said, "The more often you cross the line, the more quickly the line disappears". That is a good analogy because I think it is right. The more we question the rights of the States and Territories under the Constitution and the rights of the Commonwealth to intrude into those areas, the more we dismantle the Constitution. If we continue to do it, we will get to the stage eventually where there will

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