Page 1903 - Week 06 - Thursday, 8 June 2006
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
between defending the territory’s right to make legislation and the federal government’s power to overrule it. It must be. Why are not we hearing that?
Sadly, it seems to have opted for the line it usually takes. If Kerr was Fraser’s cur, then the ACT Liberal opposition is Howard’s pack. This was the moment for the opposition to stand up and show that it is for the people of the ACT, including people whose sexual orientations, I assume, they do not share. But is that relevant? Apparently not.
Mrs Dunne: No, it is not.
DR FOSKEY: You can tell us about that, Mrs Dunne. It has shown that it sees its role differently. It grudgingly supports this motion. Why cannot it support it proudly, for God’s sake? Why cannot it say, “We believe that the ACT Legislative Assembly has the right to set legislation on these matters, and we will defend that right”? Even if it does not agree with the legislation, it should be prepared to defend it proudly.
I am sick of hearing how the Liberals proposed this register of relationships, or something like that and that the federal government would have approved of that. It would not, because it is mealy-mouthed, and that is not what the people wanted. That is my position on this motion. I support the ACT government in fighting this one all the way.
MR STANHOPE (Ginninderra—Chief Minister, Treasurer, Minister for Business and Economic Development, Minister for Indigenous Affairs, Minister for the Arts, Acting Minister for the Territory and Municipal Services and Acting Minister for Multicultural Affairs) (11.08): I certainly am very pleased today to support the motion that the Attorney-General has moved that there be an address to His Excellency the Governor-General on the Civil Unions Act 2006. Mr Corbell has quite fully explained the basis for the address and its purpose, and I will not dwell at length or in detail on the issues that have been comprehensively covered by Mr Corbell in his introduction of this particular motion.
I state quite clearly that the two issues of principle, the democratic rights of the people of the Australian Capital Territory and the rights and powers of this Assembly, need to be protected. If they are not protected by the Assembly, by the parliament itself, then we are abrogating our responsibilities to the Assembly, to the sovereignty of this parliament and certainly to the lawful and reasonable expectation of the people of the Australian Capital Territory on the rights invested in this Assembly by the self-government act, essentially our constitution, to make laws, as Mr Corbell has said, for the peace, order and good governance of the Australian Capital Territory. By implication, all of its residents will not receive the protection and support that those very important principles deserve.
It is an important principle and I would have expected all members of this place, most particularly the opposition, to join with the government in asserting those rights clearly, loudly and unambiguously. This is not a time, an issue or a circumstance in which to wobble, to shilly-shally or to equivocate. This is a very simple and fundamental principle about the democratic rights of the people of the Australian Capital Territory to be represented in this Assembly and for this Assembly to be able to pursue its lawful role as lawmaker and its constitutional right to make laws on areas consistent with the
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .