Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1996 Week 11 Hansard (25 September) . . Page.. 3413 ..

MR MOORE (continuing):

That is part of them stripping away the fundamental rights not just of this Assembly but also of the people of the ACT, of the people of the Northern Territory and of the people of Norfolk Island. Mr Speaker, the Assembly should recognise the importance of this document and should support the motion of Ms Follett.

MR BERRY (5.03): I think it is most important that we have a unanimous view on this and I rise to try to reinforce that need. I know there are members in this place who have fundamental differences of opinion with me and other members in this place when it comes to the issue, but it is an issue that I think relates very closely to self-government as delivered not so long ago in the Northern Territory and more recently here in the ACT. In both cases most of the people were some sort of immigrants from other States and therefore, in the development of self-government, expected to be treated like other Australians.

It is true, of course, that the Territories are without the trappings of the colonies and, as has been said, the self-government Acts in both places allow the Federal Government to restrict the law-making abilities of the Territories. The residents of the States and Territories right across this land are entitled to be treated similarly. They are entitled to feel as though they are Australians and they ought not be isolated. Let us take an example. Say, for example, the Federal Government removes the right of this Territory to have certain videos sold in the Territory. If New South Wales does something to the contrary, you have the ridiculous situation where somebody can drive to Queanbeyan and get the product which is banned here.

It is true that in unicameral parliaments there is more likely to be change - except perhaps in Queensland, although it has a unicameral system. They are more volatile than are the bicameral parliamentary systems. I do not think anybody would question that. But we are, after all, Australians who feel as though we ought to be treated the same as people in the other States. The situation in the States is very clear. The Federation was formed under a single Constitution with their agreement. They themselves right now are entitled to develop controversial legislation, or legislation which some members of the Federal Parliament might find unacceptable and might wish to see reversed. But they can do nothing in relation to those States unless they go through the procedures which were set out in the first place in relation to changes to the Constitution.

I think this is the important point: As an Australian I am quite happy, if Mr Andrews is capable of having the majority of the houses in the Federal Parliament agree to put a referendum to the community in relation to this issue or any other issue, to cop the outcome. We all know how a referendum works. The majority of the States have to agree to it and the majority of the electors have to agree to it in order for the Commonwealth to have those powers. Otherwise the Commonwealth has to draw its powers from powers already given to it under the Constitution. It plainly does not have the power under the Constitution as it now stands, as I read it, to do these sorts of things to the other States; so it should not exercise the power, even though it has it, in relation to the Territories, because we would then be being treated quite differently from the majority of Australians across this land.

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .