Page 3748 - Week 12 - Wednesday, 22 November 2006
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
commonwealth level and in all the state jurisdictions. We do have checks and balances in Australia and they are there for good reasons.
The system of checks and balances means the three tiers of government in Australia—the executive, legislature and judiciary—work independently of each other to balance decisions and ensure that none operates beyond the reaches of its power. We have constantly seen efforts to try to blur opposition to the civil unions legislation. We are told that it is all some political or social agenda that has been driven by the Howard government. It is not really relevant what John Howard’s personal views might be on these matters. The fact of the matter is that, whether you accept it or not, what prompted these events was the belief that this Assembly had passed legislation that may have been in conflict with commonwealth law. As was pointed out in documentation that we saw and was published, this is what activated the response by the commonwealth. It was not simply a case of saying, “I don’t like that particular law.”
You may argue with the constitutional legal advice that was presented—and that in itself can be a debate—but you have to accept the fact that this was based on this legislature going beyond its scope. For that reason, you have to have checks and balances; we have the capacity for people to go to the courts and seek to overturn legislation that we pass. We do not have a situation where we have a totalitarian state and the majority in this institution can decree what will happen. We have checks and balances in the system and they are very important if we are to preserve the democratic system.
We saw the circumstance in 1975—which members opposite and their colleagues keep reviving—where Australia was threatened with a scenario in which appropriations would be denied to the then government. The government of the day declared that they would bypass the parliament and secure funds from financial institutions. Whether you like it or not, after exhaustive attempts to secure a budget, the appropriate check was brought into play and this led to the deadlock being broken. Indeed, it is interesting to note—and this also seems to have been forgotten—that at the next election the people of Australia delivered a 55-seat majority to the incoming government, which, as unpopular as it may have been to some people, must have been a pretty clear indication that democracy came into play and this vindicated and confirmed the appropriateness of that decision.
I do not in any way suggest that we should stifle the representative quality of the ACT legislature but we have to recognise that there are checks on our role here as elected representatives and as a legislature, and that there are checks on the government of the day. These are powers that need to be exercised appropriately. We need to accept the fact that, while the ACT government does have the power to legislate, the commonwealth’s executive power to disallow legislation serves as a check on that power. These checks and balances are a foundation of our political system.
I am sorry that Dr Foskey has left the chamber. I find it absolutely extraordinary that the Greens would come in here and talk about overriding legislatures. As a young person I saw Dr Bob Brown advocate that the Australian government override the Tasmanian parliament in the Franklin River case by going to the High Court of Australia and defying the democratic wishes of the elected Labor government of that
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .