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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 12 Hansard (7 December) . . Page.. 3901 ..

MR STANHOPE (continuing):

Of course, there is a whole range of things that it would be appropriate to discuss and to debate now. One of those would be the extent to which it is now very much past time, after 100 years, for us to take the next great step in the development of this nation, namely, the determination of our will to become a republic. There is a whole range of issues that it would be appropriate for us to discuss now.

The question of how this territory, this parliament, should be represented at the centenary of federation celebrations is one that we could argue and dispute. We are fully supportive of the prospect of members of this Assembly representing the territory at those celebrations. We do believe, however, as my colleague Mr Wood has said, that this motion is too open - ended in that in paragraph (2) it says that members of the Assembly of the Australian Capital Territory should join in the celebrations in Melbourne. It is a suggestion that all 17 members of the Assembly might be funded by the public purse to participate in this celebration. It would almost certainly be the case that the 17 members would choose to attend the celebrations, but we think that we here today should not be passing a motion which signals that we believe it is appropriate for every single member of this parliament to be in Melbourne for the centenary of federation celebrations. We think that is not something that would be welcomed, applauded or supported by the people of Canberra.

So, as foreshadowed, I have circulated an amendment to paragraph (2) of Mr Moore's motion saying that a delegation of members of the Legislative Assembly, comprising the Chief Minister, the Leader of the Opposition and the Speaker, represent this parliament formally at the centenary of federation celebrations. We believe that that would be appropriate. That is the amendment that I circulate. We believe that that provides a significant and very senior level of representation of this parliament at those celebrations. We believe that that is an appropriate level of representation. We believe that to pass a motion here tonight suggesting that all 17 members of the Assembly be supported by this parliament as delegates to these celebrations simply would not be supported by the people of Canberra. Therefore I move the following amendment:

MR HUMPHRIES (Chief Minister, Minister for Community Affairs, Attorney - General and Treasurer) (8.25): Mr Wood asked why we were being asked to go to Victoria? What is the point of the exercise? Why is it important that we all attend? Perhaps to some degree the problem with this motion arises from the fact that not all members have yet received the briefing from the Centenary of Federation Committee that was designed to illuminate members about the process to be used here and the purpose.

The purpose, as I understand it from what I have been told, is a symbolic act. Australia was formed as a nation in slightly precarious circumstances. Members know that there wasn't unanimity among Australian colonists at that stage to come together to form a nation. Indeed, I think Western Australia voted at one point against being part of the federation and it took another effort to get them to come in on day 1 as an originating

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