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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2002 Week 10 Hansard (28 August) . . Page.. 2965 ..

MR HUMPHRIES (continuing):

The other point I want to make in this debate is that sovereignty and self-determination are very sensitive topics within the ACT community. I suspect that, even today, a large number of members of this community-24 years after the last referendum on whether the ACT should have self-government-would protest strongly at the assertion of sovereignty made by Mr Hargreaves in today's debate. He would say that the ACT is not well served by being self-governing and should go back to the tutelage of a federal department and a federal minister.

Mr Hargreaves: You do not agree with that, do you?

MR HUMPHRIES: Of course I do not agree with that, Mr Hargreaves.

I also acknowledge the fact that we go out there with bells and drums and say, "Hey citizens, we are not getting power to do everything we want to do as a self-governing territory!" Many of those citizens-our electors-will say, "Just as bloody well! We do not want you to be entirely in control of the situation. We would prefer the federal minister to have some control over what goes on in this territory."

I am not saying I sympathise entirely with those points of view, yet I acknowledge that the public importance Mr Hargreaves attaches to the principle of self-determination is not of the same public importance many in this community would attach to that concept.

The third point is that we must acknowledge there are many areas where there are shared responsibilities. The Aboriginal tent embassy, which has been much debated in this place, is one such area. Members can rail against the views of the federal minister but, like it or not, the federal minister has a major say in what happens to the facility at that site.

I would respectfully suggest to others in this debate that, were the roles reversed, with a federal Labor minister in the position of Wilson Tuckey today, with an ACT government attempting to dislodge that facility from its present site, members would be very keen to see the minister's powers and prerogatives in respect of that site maintained, preserved and even used.

Let us not be even a little hypocritical in saying we disagree with the way in which certain powers might be exercised, or are imputed to be exercised, in such a case and say, therefore, that we are against the exercise of the powers altogether. The fact is that, in other circumstances, we would be very pleased to see those powers exercised.

Regarding this debate, there is one small procedural point which needs to be put on the record. For some time, it has been the convention in this place that we have not had matters of public importance moved by government members on private members sitting days. If you look back, you will find that it has been quite a long time since a government member raised an MPI on a private members day. We would not do that, because of a longstanding convention. I will ask Mr Hargreaves to consider whether it would be more appropriate to do this on a government business day than on a non-government business day. I make that point in passing-there is no point of order in that.

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