Page 2409 - Week 07 - Wednesday, 17 June 2009
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
The ACT Assembly is directly accountable to voters in the ACT. ACT people have very little say in who the Prime Minister of Australia is and who makes up the government of Australia. That is why section 34(2) is undemocratic and discriminatory. I am aware that some in the past have seen this provision, the power of the Prime Minister to look over the Assembly’s shoulder and overrule any law he or she finds offensive or disturbing, as a safety net. But it has never been used that way.
As Rosemary Follett, the ACT’s first Chief Minister, pointed out at the anniversary conference last month, the time to bring that safety net into play would have been in the early days of ACT self-government, when clearly there was some instability and a few alarming initiatives. But the prime ministerial override was not needed. And I would contend that it has never been needed since.
As we all know, it was used once, without explanation, because the act the then Prime Minister chose to override was offensive to him. We do not know whether that was politically or morally offensive. Who knows why? And the use of this provision has been inferred or threatened since then by the current Prime Minister.
We should remember that Prime Minister Rudd, just after his election, first announced that he would not use this power to override legislation allowing for civil unions. But then the temptation to ride roughshod over the legislative independence, the democratic rights, of this territory, with no apparent justification but for some unacknowledged political gain, was just too great. Once again, no real explanation was offered as to the actual social damage that would be caused by same-sex couples launching their relationship with a ceremony. And I know that we do not want to go there in this debate, because the other political parties here are very keen that this discussion about self-government steers away from this one particular issue and sticks to the big picture.
Given we are asking for the Australian government to amend its legislation, it seems we have to be very cautious, whatever the people of Australia themselves, let alone the people of Canberra, may think, because civil unions are a no-go zone. But it is the lack of rationale and explanation that have been provided in the past that is the point.
Section 34(2) has been used, and is threatened to be used, for no clear purpose. There is no accounting for it and there is no accounting for when it may next be used. In terms of any notion of good law, this section fails. And I would like to know where the commonwealth parliament’s scrutiny of bills committee was when this bill got pushed through.
I do not know how one makes the Australian government take a slightly more progressive approach but it seems to me that keeping your head down is not the way to do it. And the 20th anniversary and the clear, united position of the leaders of all political parties with an interest in that matter provide imperative enough to act now.
Of course, the ACT Greens are not unique or alone in taking action on this front. The Chief Minister announced that he was writing to the Prime Minister following our
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .