Page 4638 - Week 11 - Wednesday, 19 October 2011
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
Social Policy and Legal Affairs which reported on 12 October have recommended support for the bill, and they did so after listening to arguments for and against by some of the most eminent legal minds and after taking into account the views of all who cared to make a submission to their inquiries.
It is worth reminding ourselves of some of the views. The Law Council of Australia’s view was that the commonwealth’s override power in the territories significantly undermined the democratic legitimacy of those territories. It went on to say that it was an:
… affront to the democratic process in which Territorians participate if legislation lawfully passed by their elected representatives is rendered invalid by the operation of Commonwealth laws, which are not of general application, but which are exclusively targeted at the Territories for the express purpose of interfering in their legislative processes.
Professor Cheryl Saunders from the Melbourne Law School supported the bill and called it “an overdue change to correct what has become an anachronism in the Australian system of government”. Associate Professor Tom Faunce from the Australian National University said the repeal of the executive power to override was a measure that can and should be taken now. He went on to say that the geographical accident of being a resident in the territory should not be a ground for discrimination in terms of basic rights under the Australian constitution. Mr Seselja disagrees, I think, with all of those eminent views. The Castan Centre for Human Rights Law at Monash University said the bill would enhance democratic rights in the ACT.
The inquiries conducted by the federal parliament also knocked decisively on the head any suggestion that the extension of proper respect and democratic rights to the people of the ACT should be seen as a stalking horse for single issues such as marriage equality or euthanasia, however worthy of debate and discussion each of those issues is in its own right.
The advisory report that has been provided by the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs recommends the passage of this bill although it does have a dissenting report from, surprise, surprise—members will not be surprised—Dr Sharman Stone MP and Mr Ross Vasta MP, who seem to have given a very similar speech to that Mr Seselja just gave. Maybe they are all reading from the same Liberal handbook.
But I do note that paragraph 1.13 of the report says:
At public hearings, the Senate inquiry heard evidence from Members of the Legislative Assembly from both the ACT and the NT who expressed strong support for the Bill and for parliamentary, rather than executive, override of territory legislation.
I have to say that that is slightly incorrect. Yes, members of both parliaments went and appeared and indeed I think all but one of the members of those parliaments spoke in favour; but I do not think it is fair to say that everyone, although it does not use the word “everyone”, expressed strong support for the bill, because Mr Seselja
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video