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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 2 Hansard (1 March) . . Page.. 467 ..

MR KAINE (continuing):

be no Constitution. It will be a worthless document because we will have denigrated it over successive years by people with individual issues they want to push. They will say, "In this case, it is justified for the Commonwealth to intrude on states rights".

Some of us do not believe - and I am one - that the Commonwealth should intrude on our rights on any occasion. I am opposed to the concept of having a heroin trial. I am opposed to the concept of having a shooting gallery, but I would not for a moment seek the Commonwealth's intervention to tell us that we cannot do it. This place, over my objection, has come to a conclusion about that. Would Ms Tucker suggest for a minute that we should invite the Commonwealth to override our rule on that point? I submit not. Ms Tucker was the first one to complain when the Commonwealth overrode the Northern Territory's euthanasia legislation. I do not agree with euthanasia either, but the Commonwealth acted improperly.

Ms Tucker: It is like I haven't spoken. I have addressed this. You don't listen.

MR KAINE: You can address anything you like, but you clearly do not understand the Constitution. Why don't you listen to me for once? If you continue to invite the Commonwealth to override the States every time an issue comes up that you do not like, whether it is in the Northern Territory, Western Australia, Queensland, Tasmania, Victoria or New South Wales, then you will weaken the Constitution. You might as well do away with it. You cannot invite the Commonwealth to intrude in this case and to butt out in the next one.

The Constitution is quite specific, and we should not be seeking to water it down. If you want to do away with the jurisdiction of the States, then let us do away with the Constitution and have carte blanche, open slather. Let the Commonwealth do what it likes. I do not agree with that. On this issue I stand with the Attorney-General. I do not often agree with him, but this case I do. It is very dangerous to invite the Commonwealth to intrude into the affairs of a state or territory when we do not want them to do the same thing in our affairs. You cannot have your cake and eat it too. I object to the notion that you can nibble away at the Constitution when it suits you and then stand under your constitutional rights when it does not. You cannot have it both ways. I think I have made clear my reasons why I do not support this motion. When the time comes to vote, I will vote against it.

MR RUGENDYKE (4.40): There are many things for which this Government needs to be condemned and from which we should dissociate ourselves, and this submission may well be one of them. But this motion goes on to be a typical broad-brushed greenie motion that endeavours to lock all members into a position that they may or may not fully agree with.

In broad terms, I am able to support the motion in its entirety, given that the debate today has primarily referred to children. I wish to place on record that I believe the type of mandatory sentencing spoken about in relation to juvenile offenders is totally objectionable and inappropriate. However, I reserve judgment on this issue in relation to serious recidivist adult offenders. I will refine any view that I might have when that debate surfaces in this parliament.

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