Page 4466 - Week 15 - Tuesday, 19 November 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
There is, however, a real question about the definition of the grounds set forth in the legislation. It is, I am sure, no surprise to the Attorney or to the other lawyers in the chamber to know that there are many thousands - probably tens of thousands - of legal judgments in existence, particularly in the United States, that deal with definitions and interpretations of legislation, both Federal and State in that country, to do with human rights and what we might call equal opportunities. There are many thousands of cases that define particular clauses, phrases and meanings in the relevant legislation.
Of course, as I understand it, the Bill of Rights is the basic document dealing with the rights of American citizens, and that, and other legislation over time, of course, has built up a quite large body of law which has to be interpreted by courts. I should, I think, draw to the attention of the Assembly that there are many cases of controversial and contentious interpretation of provisions in those laws, including the Bill of Rights, which have given enormous concern, not just to Americans but also to other people around the world as they have watched these events unfolding.
I would be very unhappy if we were to find ourselves in the position of having to build up a massive body of law surrounding our own legislation over a period of time in order for it to be understood by ordinary citizens - and that is not an altogether outrageous fear. There are some sections of our own Constitution, for example, that use extremely simple language, such as, "trade ... and intercourse among the States ... shall be absolutely free", for example, which is the subject of absolutely colossal amounts of legal argument and judgment; and that makes those particular provisions susceptible to interpretation by ordinary citizens only at the greatest mental exertion.
What also gives me grave concern is the course of events that have led to this legislation coming before the house. I have had the advantage of seeing, in advance, some of the remarks that Mr Collaery has made this evening concerning the authorship, or the parentage, of this Bill. I have to say that I find some of the comments in Mr Collaery's speech that are attributed to Ms Follett - and I assume that they are accurately attributed - both in the Assembly and on radio, in particular on ABC radio, quite disturbing. The comment that Ms Follett made in response to Mr Matt Abraham's suggestion that the Bill she was bringing forward was, line for line, identical with Mr Collaery's Bill was:
Well, I don't believe it is, no.
That was the end of a succession of comments that indicated very strongly, I am sure, to the listeners to that program that there was really not much of a relationship at all between the Collaery Bill and the Follett Bill presented for enactment. That, to be quite frank, is a comment which
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .