Page 1897 - Week 06 - Thursday, 8 June 2006
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
This address reminds His Excellency that the Australian Capital Territory is a body politic with a plenary grant of power. We have the power to make laws for the people of the Australian Capital Territory. It reminds His Excellency that members of this parliament have been elected by free election on the basis of pre election commitments made clearly to the electorate. When it comes to this piece of legislation, there can be no doubt that those on this side of this place, and a majority of members in this place, went to the last general election here in the ACT on the basis that, if elected, we would enact civil unions legislation.
This address also advises the Governor-General that, concurrent with that political mandate, we have passed the Civil Unions Act. It asserts that the passage of that act is a lawful exercise of the power given to us. There can be no doubt that the states and the territories do have the constitutional right to make laws in relation to same sex relationships. There can be no doubt about that. If there is any doubt, I simply refer members to the comments made by the commonwealth Attorney-General, Mr Ruddock. Mr Ruddock very clearly said that this is a matter for the states and territories to legislate on, and that is what we have done.
The nub of the argument, of course, from the commonwealth’s perspective at least, is that they believe this law should be disallowed because of its exceptional circumstances and because it effectively is beyond the power of this parliament to make that law. That is not the case. We know that if a state parliament were to make this law, this law would be unchallenged by the federal government. The only reason it is challenged is not because of trespasses on commonwealth law-making power. It is because it can be, because we are a territory and the commonwealth has the opportunity to intervene politically. There is no trespass on commonwealth powers.
As I have outlined to members, this address reminds and offers the Governor-General an appropriate path to travel. It says that we are mindful of the need for legislatures to operate, wherever possible, cooperatively within a federal system and that we, as a legislature, are prepared to consider any recommendations that the Governor-General may choose to make to this place as to how this legislation may be amended to address any concerns that the commonwealth may have.
That is the challenge that now rests solely and squarely with Philip Ruddock and with the Prime Minister. They should advise His Excellency which specific elements of this legislation offend the commonwealth and what remedy they would propose to amend that legislation. If they choose to do that, I am sure His Excellency would advise the Assembly accordingly. It would then be back in our court and the Assembly could decide whether or not we believed such amendments were reasonable or proper. That is a constructive way to resolve this impasse.
In making this address, we recognise that the Australian Capital Territory executive does not advise the Governor-General on these matters. We recognise also that the Assembly itself cannot provide advice to him. But we can send this message to him, and that is the opportunity that we have with this very important step today.
In closing, it is worth making the following points. This is the first time that this power has been exercised by the commonwealth in the 17 years of self-government. It is an
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .