Page 4460 - Week 15 - Tuesday, 19 November 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Basically, there is the title; the old clause 35 has been taken out; about four other clauses have been taken out and some parts have been put into other clauses; and a new clause 89 has been put in, which is actually, to my mind, a very good addition and I would actually commend the Labor Party for that. It is a pity that their Federal colleagues could not put something similar into the AFP Act in relation to complaints against police. But they are the only real amendments. There have not been too many really substantive amendments to the draft in this Bill. So, while Ms Follett and the Labor Party refer to this Bill virtually as their own, it is a Bill that has been developed very much by the Alliance Government. That should have been acknowledged and Mr Collaery is quite right in pointing that out.
Mr Collaery is also quite right in pointing out that the Labor Party certainly does not have a monopoly on human rights. If anything, at times that party has shown a distinct disinclination in relation to some aspects of human rights. I would point out to members opposite that landmarks in relation to human rights, anti-discrimination and a really fair and equal opportunity for all in Australia have often come from the conservative side of politics.
For example, in politics, the first woman in Federal Parliament was, I think, Dame Enid Lyons. She was a member of the United Australia Party, the forerunner of the Liberal Party. Indeed, in relation to racial discrimination, the first Aboriginal member of parliament was, of course, Senator Neville Bonner, a Liberal senator from Queensland. Quite often the Labor Party speaks very loudly in relation to human rights and anti-discrimination; but, in fact, it is often people on the other side of the fence - in political parties of a conservative or National Party nature - who have pioneered some very significant reforms in human rights in Australia.
I think that does bear saying. I do not mean in any way to take away from some of the reforms that the Labor Party, over its 100-year history, has made, to the benefit of Australia, on the questions of anti-discrimination and human rights. But one certainly cannot forget the very significant examples I have given in relation to pioneering steps taken by the Liberal Party and by its predecessors in relation to this particular question.
At this stage I raise a number of matters in relation to which we will be seeking to amend this Bill. We have also been given some other amendments by Mr Stevenson, and also some further amendments by Mr Collaery, some of which we knew would be coming and some of which I have just seen for the first time. There are significant amendments, as one would expect in relation to a Bill of this nature.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .