Page 3749 - Week 12 - Wednesday, 22 November 2006
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
state. Is it not funny that when it does not suit your political agenda, you change your tune? Of course, Dr Brown, who started out by sitting in his tent on Mount Wellington protesting about Americans, picks the cause of the day that happens to be popular and suddenly changes the story. So in the 1980s he was opposed to a state government’s democratic rights but as soon as it comes to his own pet issues he suddenly stands up for the rights of the legislature.
MR BARR (Molonglo—Minister for Education and Training, Minister for Tourism, Sport and Recreation and Minister for Industrial Relations) (11.51): I rise in support of Ms MacDonald’s motion and to oppose Mr Stefaniak’s amendment. We thank Ms MacDonald for bringing this matter before the Assembly. It has given members the opportunity to discuss a variety of issues. We seem to have traversed federalism, mandate theories of government, the rights of our fellow territorians and issues in relation to Australia’s firm need to become a republic.
Let me respond to some of the issues that Mr Mulcahy has just raised. He mentioned section 59 of the constitution and a desire to see the Queen being able to overturn legislation on the basis of it being a check and a balance. That provides an interesting insight into where Mr Mulcahy sees his true spiritual and political home. His view seems to be drawn not from being a democratic representative of the people of the ACT but from harking back to what can only be described as anachronistic power and a doffing of the hat to—
Mr Mulcahy: So as a minister of the Crown you do not uphold the constitution of Australia?
MR BARR: I believe—and I am happy to put it on the record—that Australia should be a republic and that the ACT Legislative Assembly performs an admirable role as a model republic, if you like. The fact that we do not have a governor or an administrator serves to show that in this country it is possible to have such arrangements.
But let me get back to the key issues that Ms MacDonald has raised in her motion. What we are seeking to do—the issue Ms MacDonald has raised—is look specifically at the power where the Governor-General, having been called by the executive to do so, can disallow any act that has been enacted by the Legislative Assembly. I believe—again, I will put it on the record—more broadly that there is a need to reform the self-government act in a whole range of areas, be it in relation to euthanasia or in relation to policing in the territory. There is a whole range of areas where, 17 years into self-government, I believe that we can have another look at the self-government act. There is one area where I think that is particularly the case. It has been highlighted through the use of that particular power of the self-government act to overturn the civil union legislation. What we are really debating today is a need for that particular power of the Governor-General to be removed. Obviously it is not within the purview of this Assembly to remove the power. It is something that we need to refer to the commonwealth parliament.
In putting forward this motion, Ms MacDonald has sought to highlight this particular issue. I believe it is one that deserves greater attention, perhaps as part of a broader review of the self-government act. But as a minimal first step, this particular part of
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .