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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2002 Week 10 Hansard (28 August) . . Page.. 2967 ..

Mr Corbell: That is right, you were not talking about building it.

MR HUMPHRIES: We said that, when we did build it, we were going to build it on the eastern route.

Mr Speaker, that was the situation three years ago. At the time, the federal Labor senator for the ACT, Kate Lundy, made it perfectly clear that the Labor Party would consider moving in the Senate to block that proposal. You may have forgotten that, Mr Hargreaves. I do not know if Senator Lundy promised it would happen, but she certainly gave a clear indication that this issue would be raised in the Senate. She indicated her view as being that the Senate should not approve the eastern route.

I fail to see the difference between the federal minister threatening to use the numbers in the federal parliament-in the House of Representatives in this case-to block the western route, and Senator Lundy using her numbers in the Senate, the upper house, to block the eastern route. I see no difference whatsoever. So let us not be too precious about subverting the democratic process. If it is good enough for Senator Lundy, it is good enough for Mr Tuckey.

Mr Speaker, as I said, the ACT does not have full self-government-full self-determination. It has a limited measure of that. As much as I would like to see this Assembly as the master of all it surveys, I am not sure I subscribe to the view that we should wind back all the limitations on ACT self-government at this time.

Firstly, I am certain that would not be supported by a majority of citizens of the territory. Secondly, I am not sure it is wise in matters impacting on the integrity and operation of the federal parliament and the federal government.

MS TUCKER (3.45): I agree with a number of points Mr Humphries has made in his presentation. Under the self-government act-which, as Mr Humphries pointed out, is basically at the whim of the Commonwealth government-matters are excluded from our power to make laws.

Those matters include the fact that we have no power to make laws about the acquisition of property, otherwise than on just terms; provision by the Australian Federal Police of police services; raising or maintaining of any naval, military or airforce; coining of money; classification of materials for the purpose of censorship; matters which are the subject of laws, and enforced in the territory, relating to companies; closed corporations, foreign companies; acquisition of shares in bodies corporate, and regulation of the securities industry. In addition, the Assembly has no power to make laws permitting or having the effect of permitting-whether subject to conditions or not-the form of intentional killing of another called euthanasia. There are other powers listed in schedule 4, which I will not read out now.

The point of this discussion, as I understand it from Mr Hargreaves, is that he feels this situation is inappropriate. I guess what he is saying is that we need to have exactly the same powers as states. In principle, apart from planning matters, I do not disagree with that. I do not see why we do not have the same powers as a state to determine the welfare of our community. When we ask why this is so, and we remember that the federal

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