Page 3746 - Week 12 - Wednesday, 22 November 2006
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
can be trusted, but the ACT cannot be trusted. According to the commonwealth, Canberrans do not deserve the same democratic right, authority and respect as the rest of Australia; they cannot be trusted. I oppose euthanasia, but I should have the right to debate it. I should have the right to represent the people of the Australian Capital Territory on this issue. I should have the right to represent the views of people in this community on this issue.
If members of the Liberal Party, the opposition, in this place do not support this motion, they are saying that they agree that the people of the ACT are second-class citizens, that they accept the judgment of the commonwealth that they cannot be trusted on some issues. Those are issues, of course, on which the commonwealth can decide we cannot be trusted. We cannot be trusted on euthanasia. We cannot be trusted on gay and lesbian relationships. There was a suggestion we could not be trusted on human rights generally. We cannot be trusted on the criminal law. They have selected one aspect of the criminal law. But let’s not elevate that. We are talking about amendments to the Crimes Act to deal with terrorism. It is just another aspect of the Crimes Act. The commonwealth is saying that the people of the Australian Capital Territory cannot be trusted on the Crimes Act. That is what it is saying and members opposite cannot walk away from that. They must support this motion. (Time expired.)
MR MULCAHY (Molonglo) (11.41): The abiding message and basically the theme that comes through this debate—it was interesting to hear what was just said by the Chief Minister and the former Attorney-General—is that there should be unfettered power for this legislature, that the legislature should not be accountable and that there should not be any constraints whatsoever. We are told that as democratic representatives we should, if we so wish, be able to do what we like on any issue. One might well argue that people on the Queanbeyan council might feel that their roles are constrained and that they ought to be able to do what they like too. If you apply that line of logic to the whole system you could argue that we should toss out the checks and balances.
I support the first elements of the motion but I do not support the third. I support Mr Stefaniak’s amendment. The first two points of the motion are probably not really necessary. The commonwealth executive does recognise the Assembly and respects the rights of the ACT. We pass and enact legislation with regularity. Since the election in 2001 we have seen this government put in place laws and provisions that directly impact on and control the lives of the people of the ACT. But it is important at the outset to recognise that the Australian Capital Territory is just that: a territory, not a state. We do not have the same powers as a state. I know that this fact irks some of those opposite but this arrangement was put in place to check the power of the Assembly. At the federal level and in most state jurisdictions the legislature contains an upper house and in a sense this provides an additional check on the legislature and the government of the day. Proportional representation in the upper house of the federal parliament means that minor parties, such as the Greens, which represent the fringe of society can achieve representation and check the power of the government of the day.
One could mount exactly the same argument in respect of the House of Representatives, which is democratically elected on a population basis. Why should anybody have ultimate power to override the House of Representatives? If you apply
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .