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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 2 Hansard (1 March) . . Page.. 472 ..

MR MOORE (continuing):

I recognise that there are many issues before us at any time and we choose to follow some and not others. But we have chosen to make this a more important issue. Perhaps the catalyst for doing that was a young boy's death in custody in the Northern Territory. But to point the finger at the Government and say, "Yes, you made a submission but you did a really bad job because these things aren't in it", is not acceptable when you did not make a submission. The Labor Party did not make a submission either. I think we have to be very careful when pointing the finger at other people.

At 5.00 pm the debate was interrupted in accordance with standing order 34; the motion for the adjournment of the Assembly having been put and negatived, the debate was resumed.

MS TUCKER (5.02), in reply: Firstly, I would like to address Mr Kaine's concerns. I will clarify for him exactly why I have worded the motion in the way I have and why I did not directly call on the Government to change its submission. My understanding of the separation of powers is that we have an Executive, a parliament and a judiciary. My understanding is that, in this particular instance, because it is not a matter of administration of territory affairs, the ACT Government did have the right to put the position that it put.

Rather than call on the Government to change its submission, I have called on the Assembly to distance itself from the submission and condemn it. Some members have said that, if I did not like it, I should have put in a submission. I believe the Greens' position is very clearly put; it is a Greens' Bill in the Senate. The point I have been making today is that, if this Government is genuinely interested in being open, cooperative and consultative, even while I respect its role as the Executive, I think it would have been consistent with its claims to be cooperative and open to discuss the matter, to give the ACT community an opportunity to have a voice in the decision.

The ACT Government has put forward this submission, and I am condemning and dissociating myself from it, as other people have chosen to do. It is quite clear what our position is. Mr Kaine asked what action would come from this. If I had the support of nine people, I would have communicated that to the Senate inquiry as a matter of interest. If there were a majority of people in the ACT Legislative Assembly who did not support the particular submission, people in the Senate inquiry would be interested to know that. So that is the position.

Mr Kaine was also concerned about the language that I used. I did explain this in my speech, as I have explained many things which appear to not have been heard because the same arguments are being put without taking into account any of the matters I raised in my speech. Mr Berry tells me that people are not here to listen, and I was silly to think that they would have listened.

The first issue concerned the use of the words "racially discriminatory in effect". As I explained in my speech, the legal opinion to the Prime Minister from 23 legal academics was as follows:

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