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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 6 Hansard (24 May) . . Page.. 1705 ..

MS CARNELL (continuing):

intervention by the Commonwealth. It is very hard to suggest that because we believe the laws in the Northern Territory or Western Australia are inappropriate the federal government should intervene.

It is not appropriate for the ACT government to comment on the legitimately made laws of democratically elected governments. We certainly can individually. No problems there at all. We do it all the time. But whether this Assembly, as a legislative unit, should get involved is another question. This government accepts that the federal government has the constitutional power to legislate to implement international instruments such as the Convention on the Rights of the Child. What is questioned is the propriety of the federal government in doing so in an area that is otherwise firmly the responsibility of the states and territories.

The ACT government submission to the Senate Legal and Constitutional References Committee advised the exercise of caution in legislating in areas of state and territory responsibility. The committee, in its 1995 inquiry into the Commonwealth power to make and implement treaties, itself raised this very issue. It specifically referred to the Convention on the Rights of the Child and the concern which Australia's ratification generated both in the wider community and with state and territory governments generally.

These concerns were squarely based on the fear that ratification would allow the Commonwealth to legislate in a particularly sensitive area that is very much the traditional province of the states and territories. If those laws are flawed, then let them be challenged through the appropriate channels or let the electors decide whether they are or are not appropriate in their particular state or territory.

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. That is a debate we have had in this place before. It is important to restate, though, that nobody on this side of the house-at least nobody I know of-supports the legislation that has been passed in the Northern Territory or Western Australia. This is an issue of whether we should become involved in legislation in other states.

The second bit of Mr Stanhope's motion is with regard to the Commonwealth submission to the stolen generation inquiry. The ACT Assembly has been vocal in its acknowledgment of the effects of separation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children from their families. On 17 June 1997 members of the previous Assembly passed a motion in response to the Bringing them home report. This was an apology motion which acknowledged the effect of the hurt and distress inflicted on people as a result of the separation practices. This apology to all Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander families and communities affected by the separation of children is just one of the many necessary steps on the path to true reconciliation.

This government is keen to ensure that the wider reconciliation process continues. This is evident in the continued support to organisations such as the Canberra Journey of Healing Network and Australians for Reconciliation in their work to build bridges and foster a shared understanding between indigenous and other Australians. The government

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