Greens push for remonstration on self-government

Cnaberra Times is reporting this morning that new Federal Minister for Home Affairs Brendan O’Connor is talking in a little more conciliatory manner about this. Essentially says he welcomes public debate on the issue of self-determination in ACT, but that any changes would need to be based on comprehensive consultation in the ACT community and broad consensus.

The door is just a little ajar…and all the parties are as one on this issue (the no veto issue). So the stars are aligned so to speak…

Bring it on I say.

Oh, and back on theme, it looks to me like we have plenty of’balance’ in our current electoral arrangements.

As Gungahlin Al correctly points out, we do have a proportional representation system and one that has deliverd just one majority government, during its twenty years. The only majority government, the last one, got hammered for being seen (in my opinion) to have abused its majority position.

Those looking to maintain a system of veto need look no further than the disfunctional, and unrepresentative ‘swill’ that is the Australian Senate, to realise that he last thing the ACT needs is to be second-guessed by a few cretins that have no proper role in telling us what to do.

bd84 said :

Stanhopeless’ gay marriage bill still won’t float even if the dissallowance power is removed. ACT Legislation will still not be able to override Commonwealth Law.. Commonwealth Marriage Law > Stanhope.

In fact it was civil unions law (a registration system) and not a ‘marriage’ law that Howard overturned – and the Feds have no constitutional power to stop the states enacting such legislation should any state choose to do so. Just look to Tasmania.

Makes you wonder why, having committed to stay out of the issue in the wake of the last Federal election, Rudd folded on that commitment.

Don’t let the facts get in your way though bd84 – maintain your rage.

Stanhopeless’ gay marriage bill still won’t float even if the dissallowance power is removed. ACT Legislation will still not be able to override Commonwealth Law.. Commonwealth Marriage Law > Stanhope.

caf said :

An alternative to an upper house would be to expand the electorates so that an absolute majority is harder to obtain.

An absolute majority only lasts for as long as the electorate votes for it. As could a government’s opportunity to prevent having any of its legislation overruled.

GnT said :

I think the NT, which has similarities to us (self governing territory) has an ‘administrator’ to sign off on laws, like a state’s govenor.

They do (good pick up), but it can all still be overruled by federal parliament. It leads to a good discussion.

I think the NT, which has similarities to us (self governing territory) has an ‘administrator’ to sign off on laws, like a state’s govenor.

caf said :

PM, you’ve missed a substantial part of the issue.

Constitutionally, the Federal Parliament has untrammelled power over the Territories – this is true.

However, it is mere legislation (rather than the Constitution) that has devolved a specific disallowance power over ACT law to the Federal Executive. It’s the removal of this power that the Greens are asking for – this would still leave the Federal Parliament able to overrule ACT laws, but they’d have to pass a bill to do so, which requires debate and needs to pass the Senate.

I agree with you – that’s what I was trying to say 🙂

I guess I’m saying we shouldn’t forget that it was a private member’s bill which was passed that overruled the NT’s euthanasia laws, for example. Residents of the ACT will never (under Australia’s current constitution) have the same rights as a state. In debating the merits of the Greens’ proposal, we should all remember that fact.

PM, you’ve missed a substantial part of the issue.

Constitutionally, the Federal Parliament has untrammelled power over the Territories – this is true.

However, it is mere legislation (rather than the Constitution) that has devolved a specific disallowance power over ACT law to the Federal Executive. It’s the removal of this power that the Greens are asking for – this would still leave the Federal Parliament able to overrule ACT laws, but they’d have to pass a bill to do so, which requires debate and needs to pass the Senate.

I think the crucial question raised by the Greens is do we want the feds to have the power?

Constitutionally, the federal parliament has the power. End of story.

Issues for me are a)what can happen to make it harder for the feds to use that power, and b) in such a situation, would we need/want to revise our ACT political process?

An alternative to an upper house would be to expand the electorates so that an absolute majority is harder to obtain.

johnboy said :

States at the very least have a governor who *can* refuse assent.

We don’t even have that. I’d like to see a second chamber in the assembly before we take off the trainer wheels.

+1

unhindered

Governments always have the capacity to do unlawful or just mean or silly things. The proponents need to show how they will bring some review to the unhiodered power of a single party holding majority in a small jurisdiction. That would be an improvement that would draw wide support from the community, but I won’t hold my breath.

caf made an excellent point (beat me to it) and yes, pm, if the feds really want it out it will go, but it is somewhat more problematic and significant for them, so they’re less likely to be hasty and simply populist, like with the same sex civil union issue…

Caf’s suggestion seems the only way it can be done – but technically the Feds Parliament can still override if there’s a majority in both houses.

I agree with caft @#5. At least that way the Feds have to bring on a bill and have a debate on why the democratic will of a territory is being ursurped rather than just doing on a nod and a wink from the Prime Minister.

I’d rather a poor check than no check at all.

This wouldn’t take away the Federal ability to overrule ACT laws – it would just mean that they’d have to enact legislation to do so, rather than simply using an executive order. I don’t have a problem with that.

That’d be the Queen’s Govenor, would it? That’s what I call democratic. Never picked you as a fellow monachist, JB

While we don’t have the check of a second house (as is the case in Qld) we do have the proprtional representation voting method, which does make it inherently less dictatorial than the Qld situation.

However, if people are so keen on a check, then just require an absolute majority of the Federal Parliament. Some have suggested this via a joint sitting requiring 2/3 majority.

The key issue is that it is on the say-so of the PM of the day, and of course their party people will fall into line, as Kate did on this issue last year, despite her protestations.

Any talk about a governor (general) is a red herring. No governor since Kerr is likely to veto a PM (or Premier) recommendation, methinks.

States at the very least have a governor who *can* refuse assent.

We don’t even have that. I’d like to see a second chamber in the assembly before we take off the trainer wheels.

I really don’t see too much of a problem with moving to position more like the States where the Governor signs off on legislation. As a democracy, we’re allowed to make right and wrong decisions and ultimately it’ll all get sorted out in the end.

Besides, what can really go wrong? What would the assembly legislate that would be so out there? Gay marriage is really a non event except for those who feel it important to be able to force their moral will on others. Euthanasia laws, whilst controversial for Catholics and other nutter groups might mean that our terminally ill members of the community could finally get the same rights as dogs and cats. Besides, the Commonwealths constitutional powers would still be there to moderate the most bizarre of the lefts policy excess.