Page 2527 - Week 07 - Wednesday, 17 June 2009
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
how the law stands in the Northern Territory, thus claiming falsely that the ACT was somehow different. He said:
We believe those provisions that provide for the executive disallowance of ACT statutes to be completely undemocratic and unacceptable. It is not even a provision that exists in the Northern Territory. In the Northern Territory, if the commonwealth are unhappy with territory law, they have to legislate. But apparently that difference is okay for us here in the ACT.
In fact, the situation for the Northern Territory is just the same as it is in the ACT. Section 9(1) of the Northern Territory Self-Government Act states:
Subject to this section, the Governor-General may, within 6 months after the Administrator’s assent to a proposed law, disallow the law or part of the law.
Section 9(4) states:
Upon publication of notice of the disallowance of a law, or part of a law, in the Government Gazette of the Territory, the disallowance has, subject to subsection (5), the same effect as a repeal of the law or part of the law.
The Attorney has shown that he is simply wrong about how the law applies in other jurisdictions. It means that we cannot, with confidence, leave these issues in the hands of Mr Corbell.
I need to reflect on the very unfortunate process that we have seen in bringing forward this very important issue. It reflects very badly on the Greens that all the parties represented at the commemorative sitting spoke about the need for reform of the self-government act—to some extent the failure is ours as much as it is anyone else’s—and no-one actually took the step of saying: “We all think that there should be a review of the self-government act. How about we all sit down and talk about the best way forward?” That did not happen. The Greens had a rush of blood to the head. Without telling anybody, they come up with this idea of a remonstrance about one very small aspect of the self-government act.
The Greens are very keen on the idea of the remonstrance. I think that is because it is slightly quaint and has not been done before—it sets you apart. I can understand the appeal of the mechanism, but the intent is wrong. You did not take the rest of the Assembly with you; you only looked at one very narrow aspect of that. When this issue became public, we started to negotiate. My staff and Mr Seselja’s staff negotiated with members of the Greens and with staff from Mr Corbell’s office over a lengthy period. As of last night, we had an agreement that is largely reflected in the amendment that Mr Seselja has moved today.
Mr Corbell: Not from the Labor Party you didn’t—not from the Labor Party.
MRS DUNNE: But there was agreement from the Greens.
Mr Corbell: Not from the Labor Party.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .