Page 1765 - Week 05 - Thursday, 8 May 2008
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
feature and all that goes with it and what it stands for—because we are not a parliament in that sense. These are complex issues in terms of powers, but I do not think they should be ignored in the heat of what has become a very high-profile issue.
The government suggest that they believe they have a mandate on this policy from the 2004 election, but I am very much of the view that a significant number of people voted for them for reasons other than their particular interest in the issue of civil unions. I appreciate that a number of people in this community see this as a very important issue. It is a very emotive issue. Mr Barr has spoken at great length tonight and with a great deal of passion about how important it is for people in this town.
I do not think, though, that it is an issue that is prevailing with a large number of the people in Canberra. I can only judge that on the letters and emails I receive—a very small number—on this issue. I have had people on one side send me letters. I had one quite bizarre letter today saying, “Oppose the lot. This is all linked to various disease and illness.” It was quite an irrational letter.
Mr Barr: Dolphins? Did it mention dolphins?
MR MULCAHY: No, it did not get into the dolphins. I do not think that this was a person from the religious right, but they had some extreme views. And I have had some on the other side of this debate. But I have to say that the number of communications I have had on this issue would be fewer than 10 in the last three months versus what would probably be now into the several hundreds on other issues.
I say that not to diminish its importance to those who have a particular interest in this but simply to say that I suspect most people in Canberra look to the Legislative Assembly to address other basic issues, such as health, education, municipal services and things of that nature, which are important in their day-to-day lives. I do not think they see this as a place for massive social change.
I think there is a bit of a temptation in this place to favour high-minded and socially profound issues over the more mundane day-to-day tasks like ensuring that police services are maintained at an appropriate level and provided in a timely fashion and that other basic services are in order.
All governments must operate within the limitations of their power. This is as true of the ACT as of the federal government and all other jurisdictions. If the ACT government believes that the commonwealth is exceeding its constitutional powers, there are mechanisms, including the High Court, where those could be tested—as has happened on occasions before when there has been conflict between commonwealth and state and territory governments. It would appear that that avenue—I imagine—has been explored and not found to be persuasive. Whether there were other motivations on the part of the current Prime Minister, others would know; I do not know.
We do have to recognise the fact that there are limitations. We cannot have defence forces raised by states; we do not have states being allowed to print their own money. Obviously, there is a view nationally that the ACT government has limitations on what it can do.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .