Page 1896 - Week 06 - Thursday, 8 June 2006
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
of the commonwealth government. That challenge is that we do not have the responsibility and the power to make laws in this regard.
Today we have the opportunity to say that that is wrong, that we, and only we, have the responsibility and the power to make laws for the people of the Australian Capital Territory. We have that mandate because it is only the 17 members of this place who have been elected to do that work. John Howard does not have that mandate. Philip Ruddock does not have that mandate. No-one else in the federal parliament has that mandate. The Governor-General does not have that mandate.
Within this place we may agree and disagree about policy or detail. Over time, the decisions in this place can change. But when that has occurred, it has happened as a result of the debate and resolution of those whom our community entrusts with that mandate. What political mandate is held by the commonwealth executive or the Governor-General to abrogate a law made in this place by the representatives of the people of the Australian Capital Territory? They hold no political mandate, and their actions can only be justified as an exercise of legal force. It has no moral authority. It has no political authority. It is simply the straight exercise of a legal force.
Mr Speaker, it has been a long time since the Queen’s representative disregarded the express wishes of the elected representatives of a parliament. In the past, jurisdictions in which this has occurred have reacted bitterly. We have seen that internationally and we have seen that here in the ACT and in the Northern Territory. The people of a jurisdiction have always said they will not tolerate the intervention of a Queen’s representative in the ordering of their laws.
It is unfortunate that His Excellency the Governor-General has been embroiled in this debate, but this is not of the territory’s making. The commonwealth government has chosen to use his powers under the self-government act to override the civil unions legislation. There could have been other ways of doing this. There could have been more constructive ways of resolving this impasse. We have the opportunity today in this address to His Excellency to outline how this can be more constructively resolved.
Section 35 of the Australian Capital Territory (Self-Government) Act does make provision for the Governor-General, on the advice of the responsible federal minister, to override an enactment made by this Assembly. But that same section also provides for the Governor-General, on advice, to recommend amendments. The challenge to the commonwealth government is to advise the Governor-General which amendments it believes will be satisfactory to address its concerns and to allow our civil unions legislation to stand.
I propose in our address to advise His Excellency that he has this power and option open to him. Concurrently, I have already written to the commonwealth Attorney-General advising him that this is the territory’s preferred path forward: do not just overturn it for some vague and ill-conceived reason; give us the details; explain in detail what is wrong with our legislation; tell us which clauses offend; give us the opportunity to amend and tell us how we may do that. This address, which members have the opportunity today to endorse, hopefully will provide His Excellency with options to resolve this matter in a constructive way.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .