Page 1701 - Week 05 - Wednesday, 1 April 2009
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
virtually immediately, within the month. Incredibly, Mr Hanson seeks to direct the government to legislate in May, but he does not even tell us exactly what he wants us to do.
What Mr Hanson is really saying through this motion is this: we must do something, anything, in order to be seen to be dealing with these bikies. Legislate, he says. He says in his motion, “I direct you to legislate,” but he cannot even tell us what he thinks the legislation should be. It is an irresponsible approach; it is one that the government rejects.
I have sought advice from the Government Solicitor on the legality of a motion that purports to direct the executive to introduce legislation. His advice is clear. The executive cannot be so directed. In fact, I have never seen in my time in this place a motion that directs another member to introduce legislation. But that is exactly what Mr Hanson’s motion does. It is clearly beyond the power of the Assembly to direct the executive to introduce legislation. For the information of members, I would like to provide a copy of the advice from the Government Solicitor in that regard. I table the following document:
Proposed resolution to direct the Executive—Copy of letter to the Attorney-General from the Chief Solicitor, dated 1 April 2009.
Mr Hanson’s motion purports that the Assembly has the power to coerce a member of the Assembly, indeed, a member of the executive, to prepare and introduce law. This is an absurd proposition, and it is clearly beyond the Assembly’s power. Any member of the Assembly may introduce a bill, if they wish, but the majority of the Assembly cannot force an individual or a party to prepare and introduce a bill.
I can understand perhaps why a novice like Mr Hanson would have approached this matter with such a fundamental misunderstanding of the roles and responsibilities of the executive and the legislature, as outlined in the self-government act, but I am surprised that someone like Mr Seselja, formerly a senior lawyer with the commonwealth Department of Transport, would allow his shadow minister to introduce such an embarrassingly flawed motion. That is what it is. It is embarrassing, and he should be ashamed for even suggesting it.
But what it really demonstrates is the rank opportunism of the Liberals. They oppose for the sake of opposition and then they call for legislation simply for the sake of being seen to act. They pay no regard to the fundamental legal reality of the separation of powers.
I want to turn now to the issues of substance in this motion. It is important for members to consider the facts. There are a broad range of territory laws already in effect that target organised crime. These include: the Australian Crime Commission Act (ACT) 2003; the Crimes Act 1990; the Criminal Code of 2002; the Crimes (Control Operations) Act 2008, which I introduced and had passed by the Assembly last year; the Crime Prevention Powers Act 1998; the Confiscation of Criminal Assets Act 2003; the Firearms Act 1996; the Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005; and even the Major Events Security Act 2000.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .