Page 3744 - Week 12 - Wednesday, 22 November 2006
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
their right to govern themselves and their right to have their democratic rights similarly respected.
We can each refer to particular examples. This is an appropriate moot to do that and, of course, we do have the example of the civil union legislation, we do have the example of threats made to our anti-terrorism legislation, we do have the example of mumblings that were made previously in response to our decision to pursue a human rights act or bill of rights for the territory, and we do have the example, very explicitly, of the legislation that was introduced in the federal parliament in relation to the Northern Territory legislation about euthanasia. Those are examples that each of us can use to point to the obvious lack of respect for the democratic rights of the people of the Australian Capital Territory portrayed by actions which the federal parliament has taken over the years.
I think it is a simple and clear-cut issue. The issue is: do the people of the Australian Capital Territory deserve to enjoy the same democratic decision-making rights over the same range of subjects that other Australians enjoy? How is it possible to argue that the people of the Australian Capital Territory do not have the capacity, the wit and the wherewithal to make decisions for themselves in relation to issues such as euthanasia, civil unions or criminal law in the form of laws to combat terrorism or laws around human rights? It is an intellectually and morally unsustainable argument to seek to sustain.
Nobody should stand and oppose this motion on the basis that ours is a unicameral parliament and there is no house of review. There is no house of review in Queensland. Would anybody seriously suggest for one minute that the people of Queensland should have to bow in deference to the Senate if they wished to pursue laws in relation to civil unions or euthanasia, criminal law around terrorism, human rights legislation or a bill of rights?
Interestingly, the threats and the mumblings from the Prime Minister in relation to this government’s decision, this parliament’s decision, to pass a human rights act were not repeated when Steve Bracks and the Victorian government chose to adopt our legislation. No, the threats were directed at the ACT government. The scoffing in relation to bills of rights and the threat to intervene were in relation to this particular parliament as the capacity was there to do it, of course, because of the operations of section 122 of the constitution.
What happened when a state, Victoria, stumped up and said, “Gee, that is good legislation that the ACT parliament has introduced, debated and passed. Let’s replicate it?” There was no threat to Victoria that the commonwealth would in some way seek to intervene to render inconsistent the Victorian human rights act, based absolutely, as it is, on the ACT’s legislation. If any state chose to pursue the civil unions legislation which the Assembly introduced and passed but which was then overturned, there would be no suggestion of intervention. The commonwealth would not pursue the matter constitutionally. We all know that the commonwealth would not seek to have it rendered inoperable as a result of inconsistency with the Marriage Act because they know they would lose.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .