Page 2515 - Week 07 - Wednesday, 17 June 2009
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
We must remember all the questions that arise when you remove one provision. For instance, we compare ourselves to the Northern Territory, and the Northern Territory has an administrator. Now that might be seen as simply a procedural thing, but there is actually a role, from time to time, for an administrator. If we remove these particular sections, do we need an administrator for the ACT? On the question of determining our own size, would we allow it to happen by simple majority? If we did, we would be asking for trouble. We would be allowing one party, potentially a majority government, through nine votes of the Assembly, potentially to lock up their electoral chances for a long time to come.
These are dangerous issues, which is why I suggested at the time that what we needed was actually a convention to look at these things. After 20 years, I believe that now is the time to look at these things. It would appear from the motion that was brought forward by Ms Hunter and, indeed, from some of the other discussions, that there is no support for that amongst the other parties. But I would point out my concerns with the original motion. I will talk to the original motion; I will then speak to Mr Corbell’s amendment; and I will also speak to some of the negotiations which I think unfortunately have broken down.
Ms Hunter’s motion, I think, is far too narrow. Simply focusing on section 35(2) of the self-government act does not address all the issues. This is true also of Mr Corbell’s amendment. It appears that Mr Corbell has a problem with section 35(2), as do I. But he does not have a problem with other provisions which allow the Governor-General to dissolve the Assembly. If we are talking about an anti-democratic move, in the self-government act the Governor-General has the ability to actually dissolve the Assembly, and it is a pretty low bar. Under “Dissolution of the Assembly by the Governor-General”, it reads:
(1) If, in the opinion of the Governor-General, the Assembly:
(a) is incapable of effectively performing its functions; or
(b) is conducting its affairs in a grossly improper manner;
the Governor-General may dissolve the Assembly.
Is there anyone in this place that believes that that is a reasonable provision? Yet we do not see it reflected in either the motion or the amendment. I think this is part of the problem of the original motion, which was very narrowly cast. It took what we agreed at the 20-year anniversary—that is, it is time for a review of the self-government act so that we can have fewer restrictions on the ACT—and it focused it all around one provision. I do not believe that that provision is necessary, but to simply cherry-pick that and say, “We’re going to focus on that and we’re going to say to the commonwealth that this is repugnant and we need to get rid of it,” whilst not focusing, for instance, on the ability of the Governor-General to dissolve this Assembly—
Mr Corbell: You should suggest that, Zed. Put it in.
MR SESELJA: I believe they should look at all the issues going forward, and I think that is the fundamental difference. We are not just cherry-picking one or two issues. I
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .