Sharman Stone (Murray, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I seek leave to give my remarks in relation to the dissenting report which Mr Vasta and I from the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs presented.

Leave granted.

We of course agree that the issue of self-governance for the territories—the ACT, the Northern Territory and, indeed, Norfolk Island—is a very serious issue. It requires serious debate and bipartisan consideration. We are concerned that this bill appeared to be no more than an attempt by the Leader of the Greens, Senator Bob Brown, in the Senate, to introduce bills which were more about their own party political agenda than looking at the broader issue of self-governance of the Australian territories. We felt seriously concerned that there was not the scrutiny that was required in a bipartisan sense.

In particular, this bill changes sections in the self-government acts. It would repeal some sections in the following way:

The Governor-General may disallow a law or part of a law made by the relevant Legislative Assembly within six months after it is made;

…   …   …

If amendments are recommended, the time within which the law may be disallowed is extended by six months from that date;

Once the disallowance is published on the Federal Register of Legislative Instruments,[2] the law is considered to be repealed, and any law that was amended or repealed by the disallowed law comes back into force.

So we are concerned that we still need to have this debate. This particular piece of legislation which looks at the ACT and the Northern Territory, as proposed by the leader of the Greens in the Senate, even included Norfolk Island for some time, until that was seen as just too ridiculous to add without proper debate and consideration. We have put in this dissenting report. We believe, as did our colleagues in the Senate, that the territories' statehood and greater independence is a serious matter and we need a considered debate with engagement from the stakeholders in those places. We should not have it slipped through in the shadows with another agenda—for example, changes to marriage or euthanasia legislation, which need to be dealt with independently as they are matters that have their own import. Those matters should not be slipped through under the guise of a bill that purports to deal with statehood.

See this speech in context