Page 4634 - Week 11 - Wednesday, 19 October 2011
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
The Canberra Liberals do not support these types of motions. We will not support a motion that is designed to seek a unanimous vote in the federal parliament. We think that Dr Bourke and all members in this place should start focusing a little bit more on the things that the community is really concerned about. Instead of talking about fait accompli votes at a federal level, perhaps the people of the ACT, whether they be in Ginninderra, Molonglo or Brindabella, would actually like to see a focus on core services, on addressing the cost of living and on dealing with the day-to-day issues that the community cares about. These kinds of irrelevant motions do nothing to further that, and for that reason we will not be supporting it.
MS HUNTER (Ginninderra—Parliamentary Leader, ACT Greens) (12.03) The Greens will of course be supporting this motion, and again I will take the opportunity to reiterate the importance of affording this parliament, to the greatest extent constitutionally possible, equality of legislative power and responsibility with the parliaments in the states. I will say again just how astounding I find it that a party represented in the parliament is arguing that they are not worthy of the democratic autonomy and ultimate responsibility afforded to all their colleagues in the states.
We have of course discussed this matter before, and the Greens’ view on the matter is very clear. I think that everyone is very clear about the arguments in support of the bill. So I do not propose to revisit those in any great detail, but I will just briefly make a couple of points in support of the bill which would, as the motion notes, remove the historic and unwarranted constraints on this parliament. I would add to that list “undemocratic”.
The current section 35 is clearly undemocratic and I do not think that anyone has attempted to argue that that is not the case. It is offensive to the fundamental principle of democracy that a person who is not accountable to the people for decisions that affect those people can make a decision that does affect those rights and interests. It is undemocratic. I am astounded that the Canberra Liberals would think that would be okay. To make it worse, the idea that it is okay for a member of the commonwealth executive who is not accountable to the people of Canberra to make a unilateral decision to overturn a law that has been validly made by a parliament is fundamentally offensive to all the basic values that our society is premised on. I think those who oppose the bill have an obligation to tell the people of Canberra why it is that a proposal that it is okay for them to have fewer rights than the citizens of the states and to have a provision that is so clearly undemocratic should be supported.
Since the previous debates, we do of course have the benefit of the extensive range of submissions made to the Senate inquiry, 203 in all. The Senate has since supported the bill, which is why I was confused when Mr Seselja started talking about the DLP and Senator Xenophon. It has passed the Senate. What this motion is about is saying that we want all of those in the House of Representatives, and that would be all of those independents, to support this. So he is a little confused there.
Submissions to the inquiry strongly supported the passage of the bill. Submitters in favour of the change included professors George Williams, Tom Faunce, John Williams, Geoffrey Lindell and Cheryl Saunders, Civil Liberties Australia, the Law
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video