Page 1900 - Week 06 - Thursday, 8 June 2006
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
the act that was passed is a lawful exercise of the legislative power of this Assembly made in pursuance of a political mandate given the parliament by the people of the ACT.
The seventh paragraph on page 1104 states:
The Commonwealth has indicated publicly that it will seek to disallow the Civil Unions Act 2006 on the basis that it trespasses on a legitimate area of Commonwealth policy, namely that dealt with in the Marriage Act.
The next paragraph states:
The Australian Capital Territory disagrees with the proposition that the Civil Unions Act has such an effect.
The government has the numbers and this motion will obviously be passed. We do not take umbrage at the term “the Australian Capital Territory”. Obviously, once a motion passes, “the Australian Capital Territory” means that the majority of members of this Assembly voted for the motion. However, your motion states that the commonwealth has indicated that the act “trespasses on a legitimate area of commonwealth policy, namely that dealt within the Marriage Act”, and you disagree with that proposition.
Well, the opposition does not. We think the commonwealth actually is right in indicating that it will seek to disallow the Civil Unions Act on the basis that it trespasses on a legitimate area of commonwealth policy, namely that dealt with in the Marriage Act. We believe that the commonwealth is right and that the act actually does trespass in relation to the Marriage Act.
Obviously, in writing to the Governor-General, you are seeking further clarification and further amendments to the enactment to clear the matter up, and that is indeed the right of the territory. But, in respect of the statement that the territory disagrees with the proposition that the act trespasses on a legitimate area of commonwealth policy, we place it on the record that we believe that, at this point in time, that is a correct statement of the law. Accordingly, we believe that the eighth paragraph on page 1104, which states that the territory disagrees with the proposition, is in fact wrong. It may well be that you can salvage something further down the track as a result of the steps you are taking, but at this stage we say the commonwealth is right. We have said that all along. We said that during the debate on your amendments, which were passed.
The motion, in part, states:
This is the first time the Governor-General will be requested to disallow a law of the Australian Capital Territory under section 35. This is an exceptional request, which will inevitably form the basis for future precedent, not just in relation to the Australian Capital Territory, but in relation to self-governing territories and other polities, including the Commonwealth itself.
To my mind, that is the first time that has occurred. We are a fairly new Assembly and this Assembly has experienced a number of firsts in its time. Certainly the government has indicated it is doing a few things that are firsts. The government proudly trumpets that this bill is an example of that. But I think it is a little bit rich for the government to
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .