Page 3717 - Week 12 - Tuesday, 18 October 2005
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
detainees the right to contact families, employers and, where relevant, their consulate. The laws must enshrine the right to humane treatment. The laws must uphold the right to a fair trial. The laws must involve a sunset clause.
I was pleased that at that meeting the Prime Minister acceded to an appropriate set of checks and balances. There was agreement—and I agreed—that we should prepare a suite of legislation along the lines discussed and that of course, the devil always being in the detail, that legislation, when prepared, would be scrutinised. In the context of the intergovernmental agreement relating to the reference of powers by states and territories to the commonwealth, the states and territories would, of course, review the legislation and then, consistent with the intergovernmental agreement, give their approval or otherwise to that suite of legislation. This is the great flaw in the case that is made against me in relation to a breach of confidentiality, which goes to the heart of this motion.
The legislation we are dealing with, the anti-terrorism bill, is legislation that was prepared consequent to a reference of powers by the states and territories. These are referred powers that have been utilised by the commonwealth. The commonwealth cannot make this legislation without the agreement of the states and territories. It is a collaborative law-making approach. The laws depend on the constitutional powers of the states and territories. It is state and territory legislation being prepared essentially on an agency basis by the commonwealth. It is our legislation. Only the states and territories can agree to the making of this legislation. The commonwealth cannot make it of its own volition. It can only be made if the states and territories agree. It is our legislation, it is not for the commonwealth to stamp “referred legislation—confidential” and bar the states and territories from releasing it and consulting on it. This is my legislation, this is legislation which the states and territories have ownership of. I will not, as a reflection of my responsibilities to the people of the ACT, and indeed in response to my responsibilities to this parliament, sign off in secret on legislation which can only be made under my fiat and under the fiat of the territory.
Is it seriously believed by the Liberal opposition in this place that, on the basis of a referral of powers, the referring power—namely the states and territories—loses or abrogates any right or responsibility to consult or take external advice? Is it seriously being suggested here today by the Leader of the Opposition that an ACT Chief Minister, on the basis of a referral of powers, should be able to unilaterally, in secret and without reference even to the Assembly or to the people he represents, abrogate all responsibility for the nature of a particular law? What an outrageous suggestion.
The Liberal Party in this place is suggesting that there should be some capacity, or that it is appropriate, logical or reasonable, to simply delegate all responsibility and authority in relation to a referred power to the commonwealth; that you send the reference off and say, “Okay, Mr Prime Minister, there is the reference. I now wash my hands of all responsibility to my parliament, to the people who elected me, to my own party room, to my cabinet, but most particularly to the people who elected me.” What a remarkable suggestion—that the Liberal Party in this place believes it is appropriate, on legislation developed as a result of a reference of powers, to simply wash your hands and abrogate all responsibility for the format, outcome, or content of the legislation.
Mr Stefaniak: That is the first time you have done it, isn’t it?
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .