Page 462 - Week 02 - Tuesday, 8 March 2011
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
MR SPEAKER: Mr Hanson!
MS HUNTER: The argument that we should not make this change because other problems still exist is utterly ridiculous.
Mr Hanson interjecting—
MR SPEAKER: Order! Ms Hunter, one moment, please. Mr Hanson, if you wish to communicate with Mr Seselja, can you do it a little more quietly, please.
Mr Hanson: Certainly, Mr Speaker.
MR SPEAKER: Thank you. Ms Hunter.
MS HUNTER: Thank you, Mr Speaker. That is, of course, not any kind of reason not to fix this problem. The argument that we should not make this change because other problems still exist is utterly ridiculous and so lacking in even the most basic logic that I doubt even the opposition really believes it.
An analogy that puts the stupidity of the argument in perspective is that of an old house that has a leaky roof, needs new flyscreens and new hinges on the back door. Imagine saying no to a plumber who offered to stop the roof leaking because he could not fix the other problems on the same day. It is a nonsense and I do not think even the Canberra Liberals believe it.
As I have said on several occasions in previous debates, we are not second-class citizens and we should have the same rights to legislate free from the threat of executive veto as the states do. Whilst we will, of course, always be the subject of some level of commonwealth veto created by the constitution that we can do nothing about, we should at the very least ensure that it must be done by the parliament and not just by a minister.
It is wrong that a commonwealth minister—not even the parliament of the commonwealth but a minister alone—can overturn a validly made law of this Assembly. It is wrong that people who have no interest in and who are not affected by what happens here in the territory have a say in the validity of the laws passed by this Assembly.
Professor Michael Crommelin from the University of Melbourne wrote recently:
The values inherent in Australian Federalism are regional diversity, local participation and decentralisation. The framers of the Constitution sought to realise these values through the establishment of two levels of government with limited powers distributed by the Constitution.
Our federal system is predicated on regional parliaments exercising significant legislative authority over their respective jurisdictions. Indeed, the scope of their powers is unlimited and extends to everything not otherwise assigned to the commonwealth.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video