Page 3036 - Week 09 - Thursday, 21 September 2006
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
simple explanation and understanding of the proposal which Senator Bob Brown introduced and which, I am pleased, was supported by the Labor Party.
One of the other important aspects of the introduction of the legislation and its debate was the fact that the Liberal Party within the ACT, supported by the Liberal senator for the ACT, Senator Gary Humphries, did not believe it appropriate to agitate or advocate on behalf of the people of the ACT for their democratic rights. It is, I think, an indictment of any politician purporting to represent a constituency to abandon the role of advocacy and leadership of those constituents’ democratic rights. To suggest that it is appropriate for us, the people of the ACT, to have our laws subject to possible annulment by executive fiat really is a remarkable position for a party which espouses to be the alternative government or wishes to be the alternative government and which wishes to lead the people of the ACT to take.
Mr Pratt: It is too late, Jon. Preselection has closed.
MR SPEAKER: Order, Mr Pratt!
MR STANHOPE: They seek, in defence of their position not to support the democratic rights of the people of the ACT, to refer to the fact that under section 122 of the constitution the commonwealth has plenary powers and can overturn any law of the territory. We understand that.
Mrs Dunne: Yes, funny about that, the constitution does get in the way, doesn’t it?
MR STANHOPE: It doesn’t get in the way; that is the point. It is disingenuous, it is dishonest, to suggest that there is an overarching power within section 122 which invests plenary powers in the commonwealth and there is therefore no basis on which one would support the overturning of the use by the executive of its fiat. Without debate in the parliament, without any attempt at justifying a position through alternative legislation that they then represent as inconsistent so that section 122 might operate, they say that they believe it is appropriate for a minister simply to send a note to the Governor-General, an unelected official, so that by executive fiat we have the Governor-General, a figurehead, overturning the laws of one of the territories. The Liberal Party in this place think that is appropriate. They think it is appropriate that a minister—
Mr Corbell: Shameful.
MR STANHOPE: It is truly shameful that the Liberal Party in this place, in this Assembly, representing the democratic aspirations of the people of the ACT, are not prepared to stand up and defend this basic right not to have the laws of its elected representatives at least face the furnace or the blowtorch of a debate in the federal parliament of opposing legislation.
Exacerbating that, the Leader of the Opposition, as we can see from press statements made today, has informed us that he will be meeting with Attorney-General Philip Ruddock and state opposition attorneys this weekend in another lovefest, and Mr Stefaniak will be taking to the meeting of opposition attorneys-general a proposal to forcefully advocate for the Attorney-General to intervene to overturn another ACT law.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .