Page 3573 - Week 08 - Friday, 24 August 2012
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
that the current list include matters that the ACT is now capable of managing; for example, censorship. On that basis, the committee has recommended that paragraph 23(1)(g) of the self-government act be removed and that schedule 4 be amended to remove the exemption in relation to censorship powers.
This was a proposal put forward by the ACT government. The committee sought legal advice on this and we feel that this is one area that is appropriate for an amendment of the act. Of course, there is still an interaction with commonwealth laws but certainly if we look at the debate we had yesterday on classification, it would clarify the situation of the ACT government and the ACT Assembly and put us on a more equal footing with other states and territories with regard to that particular area of censorship powers.
The committee also considered subsections 23(1)(A) and (1)(B). These are the provisions that put in place the constraints added by the so-called Andrews bill which addresses the issue of euthanasia. A majority of the committee—and this is the one place where the committee did form a difference of views—recommended these provisions be removed. Members will also note there are additional comments from Mr Hanson at the end of the report, and I imagine he will speak to those. But the committee did consider that the ACT government had demonstrated, and the Assembly for that matter, its maturity in respect to law making over the 23 years of self-government and, as a result, the ACT should have equal law making powers to those of the states.
The committee appreciates the sensitivities associated with a broad approach. A measure could include removing particular subsections or inserting a test that provides for the Assembly to legislate only in the best interest and good governance of the people of the territory. I think this comes to some of the matters where the committee had some particularly vigorous discussions.
Let me conclude by saying that in 1988 the federal parliament passed the self-government act, bringing self-government of the Australian Capital Territory. In his second reading speech, the federal Minister for the Arts and Territories indicated:
The Australian Capital Territory (Self-Government) Bill 1988 now before the House will establish the ACT as a body politic, with the legislative and executive powers of the States and the Northern Territory ... It will allow 270,000 people the same democratic rights and social responsibilities as their fellow Australians.
The minister then went on to pose some relevant questions in his speech. He said:
However, unlike every other person in this country, where a fair go is the creed by which we live, they cannot elect a member of their own community to their own government. They have no say in the decisions which affect their everyday lives. What an extraordinary admission in a country so committed to democratic ideals, and why? Are these people somehow different to other Australians? Are they second class citizens in some way? Do they not understand, or have options on, the issues that confront them daily? Can they not be trusted with their own destiny? The answer to all these questions is simple. The only difference between these people and the rest of Australia is that they live in the Australian Capital Territory.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video