Page 809 - Week 03 - Thursday, 22 March 1990
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
reports to a Minister on what it perceives to be abuses of human rights. That is hardly a powerful guardian of the human rights of Territorians. I would rather see properly appointed courts of the land guarding the rights of the citizens of this Territory.
I also have to say that there has been some confusion about the way in which rights designated or delineated in international covenants might be applied with respect to the existing rights or laws or privileges of the people in this Territory or, indeed, in the whole of Australia.
Ms Follett said that she has seen examples of human rights being abused. She quoted the example of the woman in the ACT Fire Brigade. I have some passing familiarity with the facts in that case and I do not think it is anything like as clear-cut as Ms Follett makes out. Nonetheless, people will argue about what rights are in the first place and about whether they are being protected in particular instances. I would have to say that you need a much stronger and better definition of how those rights interact with the existing rights, much stronger rights, of people in this country before you can say clearly that we need a particular forum to enforce them.
Just as one example - I recall some years ago seeing a pamphlet put out when the Federal Government was introducing its antidiscrimination legislation. This pamphlet was meant to elucidate or describe, among other things, instances of where discrimination might occur. It cited one example of an employer deciding that when he has to retrench an employee he will retrench a single woman without dependants rather than a married man with children as dependants. This was cited as a case of discrimination. I would have to say, Mr Speaker, that examples like that which cut across existing legal frameworks, do add to confusion. We have to ask ourselves whether confused examples of that kind, confused instances of applications of so-called antidiscrimination rights, are really helpful in advancing the rights and privileges of Australians generally?
I am also confused about the reason for an attack on this less than four-month-old Government for its failure to bring about a human rights commission office in the ACT. By Ms Follett's own admission, this office was not removed from the ACT by this Government or, for that matter, by her Government; it was removed from the ACT by the Federal Labor Government some time ago.
Mr Collaery: And the other States have not had to pay any money.
MR HUMPHRIES: Indeed, the other States have not had to pay any money to get theirs back or to retain theirs. Why is it that we are excoriated for not having brought back something which the Federal Labor Government, the Government of Ms Follett's party, removed from the ACT in the
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .