28 September 2009

Greens push for remonstration on self-government

| johnboy
Join the conversation
33

Uber Green Meredith Hunter has announced her intention to ramp up moves to get the Commonwealth to surrender its power to veto our laws.

    “After twenty years of self government, it is clear that the ACT doesn’t need to have the federal government looking over its shoulder.” Ms Hunter said today.

    “That was the message that came out loud and clear for the 20th anniversary ceremonial sitting on May 11, and the Assembly’s conference the next day.”

    “That is why I plan to move a motion in the Assembly on Wednesday, calling on the Federal Government to give up its power to overrule acts of the ACT Assembly.”

    “I have provided copies of the motion to the leaders of the other parties in the Assembly and would be pleased to work with them in order to get unanimous support.”

For mine, while I’d prefer a more democratic check on the Assembly than the Governor-General acting on the Prime Minister’s advice, I’m loathe to move to a situation where there are no checks on the Legislative Assembly at all.

Although one can see why the London Circuit Soviet would make a grab for un-trammeled power, who wouldn’t given half a chance?

Commonwealth veto over ACT laws

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

Join the conversation

33
All Comments
  • All Comments
  • Website Comments
LatestOldest

I advocate getting rid of single-member electorates, yes. They are inherently an undemocratic gerrymander.

No minor party Senators have the ability to pass or block any legislation, either individually or together – they only get that ability when they are part of a majority of Senators, which means that at least one of the major parties is voting with them.

We had a bad version of that in the last Commonwealth Parliament and in the last ACT Assembly.

The so-called nutbages have any sway only as long as Labor/Libs let them. If anything, it should make them at least talk to each other. That they consistently refuse is perhaps one reason that other minority party (I wouldn’t call them nutbags) is currently doing quite well.

Yes, but that is only first preference totals. Do you want to get rid of electorates?

I agree that both have their flaws, but i would prefer less minority nutbags telling the majority what they can do.

chewy14: 2 MPs for 240,000 voters in the ACT, 2 MPs for 120,000 voters in NT. At the last election, Nationals got 5.5% of the vote and 10 MPs – Greens got 7.8% of the vote and no MPs.

caf said :

YapYapYap: The Senate is elected by a more democratic system than the House.

12 Tasmanian Senators.

YapYapYap: The Senate is elected by a more democratic system than the House.

We also have the situation that the Assembly seems to be reluctant to take action in administrative matters, when these are, in reality, the source of most problems people have with the ACT Government.

And, to make it clear, I’m talking about the big decisions such as the decision to buy Calvary, not whether someone can erect a huge pergola or avoid a parking fine.

I could just blame the Westminster system of government we have, but that might be a tad simplistic.

redrioter said :

Personally I think there’s more than enough checks and balances in the ACT considering that majority government is rare and will probably won’t occur anytime into the forseeable future.

It only in the unusual situations that checks and balances prove their worth.

It’s a stunt. The Greens just decided to jump on the bandwagon even though Labor has been discussing this issue for awhile.

There’s been talk about pushing a policy resolution about the rights of territories (ACT and the NT) at the upcoming ALP National Conference in July. It’s been doing the rounds since the beginning of the year at least.

There also seems to be collective amnesia from the media that Stanhope talked about this issue just over a month ago.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/05/11/2566546.htm

What irks me is that they’re a bunch of opportunists but attempt to take the high moral ground.

Personally I think there’s more than enough checks and balances in the ACT considering that majority government is rare and will probably won’t occur anytime into the forseeable future.

Gungahlin Al4:26 pm 16 Jun 09

ABC is now covering this open door to the debate from Minister O’Connor.

Gungahlin Al8:27 am 16 Jun 09

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.

Clown Killer12:16 pm 15 Jun 09

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

Gungahlin Al11:57 am 15 Jun 09

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.

Clown Killer11:32 am 15 Jun 09

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.

Daily Digest

Want the best Canberra news delivered daily? Every day we package the most popular Riotact stories and send them straight to your inbox. Sign-up now for trusted local news that will never be behind a paywall.

By submitting your email address you are agreeing to Region Group's terms and conditions and privacy policy.