Page 3751 - Week 12 - Wednesday, 22 November 2006
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
the Senate—
and to speak and to vote for the WorkChoices legislation and for many other reforms that the government—
the commonwealth government—
had promised in the 2004 federal election campaign.
Senator Humphries went on to say:
It is a fair process. It is well understood by the community and reflects a long tradition in Australian public life.
Senator Humphries said that he believed the federal government’s decision to use this particular power in the ACT self-government act to revoke the Civil Unions Act was a distinct repudiation of that process. In closing, Senator Humphries said that, in short, whilst some may not agree with the ACT’s legislative choices, they have an obligation to respect them where they are democratically made.
This is at the heart of the matter that Ms MacDonald has raised. This particular aspect of the self-government act is odious. Regardless of what we might personally think of the Governor-General and the particular decisions that he was required to make by the commonwealth executive, that power is not one that the Governor-General should have. I strongly support the removal of that power from the self-government act and I thank Ms MacDonald for raising this matter today and providing an opportunity for debate on what I believe is an odious part of the self-government act.
MS MacDONALD (Brindabella) (11.59), in reply: I sincerely thank all members for their contribution to the debate. That is what I believe all parliaments are elected to do—to have the conversation and to debate the issues of importance. As I said at the start of my speech, the right of this parliament to make laws and know that they will not be overridden by somebody who is not elected is a seminal issue; it is the central issue for this place.
Mr Stefaniak moved an amendment. He started by giving us a history lesson on how the ACT came about and about its creation being a money-saving exercise. I do not doubt that, Mr Stefaniak. I am quite positive that there was a small amount of that in there. I was not born and bred in Canberra, but I have lived here for coming up to 12 years. I am a willing resident of the ACT. I think it is a great place to live, and I say that having lived in the biggest city in this country for all of my youth and in my early twenties.
But, while that may have been the reason—or one of the reasons—for the establishment of the Legislative Assembly, this place has matured. We should have the right to make our own laws without fear of them being overridden. Mr Stefaniak moved his amendment. My colleague Mr Gentleman says that the opposition is quite happy to talk about it but they do not want any practical action. I think that is what the amendment does. It says, “We respect the rights of the ACT to actually exist, but if we do not like what you say then we are going to override you anyway.” By calling
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .