Page 2511 - Week 07 - Wednesday, 17 June 2009
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
(d) the removal of a range of specific provisions that are concerned with matters that are more properly the subject of Territory law; and
(e) the appropriateness of a range of existing restrictions on the legislative power of the Legislative Assembly; and
(6) calls on the Chief Minister of the ACT to present these proposed terms of reference to the Prime Minister of Australia and the Minister for Home Affairs and to report back to the Legislative Assembly on progress on these matters.
The ACT government is committed to review and reform of the ACT self-government act, the constitution of our territory. As members will be aware, the self-government act was passed by the commonwealth parliament in 1988 and created the legal foundations for self-government in the territory.
It was drafted and then passed into law at a particular point in time when there was little certainty as to the political dynamic that would exist in this place and, indeed, a real fear that anti-self-government parties could dominate. In that environment strictures and limitations were put in place that limit in a very real sense the democratic rights enjoyed by the citizens of the ACT. The size of the Assembly is limited to 17 seats, with no change possible by the Assembly, and the Governor-General retains the power, at the stroke of a pen, to disallow any law passed by the Assembly.
No state parliament faces the prospect of such a commonwealth veto. Every other parliament, including the Northern Territory’s, can determine its own size. If such restrictions were ever appropriate, they are certainly not now. These restrictions are not only out of date; they are a stain on Australian democracy. They make the citizens of the territory second-class citizens and they impede the realisation of a real and complete self-government.
Of course we have different views on many of the policy issues we deal with here; indeed, the issue that provoked the Howard government to use the disallowance provision for the first time is such an issue. But one thing I am sure that we will all agree on is that the fears and possibilities borne in the mind by the original drafters of the self-government act have not been borne out.
What has evolved in the territory has been stable and efficient government, responsible and productive self-government. The government takes the view that it is important that we strictly separate the policy issues on which we disagree and the fundamental democratic principle that elected representatives must be free to do what we are elected to do—pass laws for our citizens. Those who confuse the issues, who endorse second-class democracy for territory citizens merely because of strongly held views on a particular issue, are phoney democrats. They believe in democracy as long as they get what they want. This desire to strictly separate the particular policy issue, such as civil unions, from the broader issues of principle around reform is the reason why I am proposing the amendments I have circulated and moved today.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .