Page 4479 - Week 15 - Tuesday, 19 November 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
values above religious values? Such groups discriminated against here could range from the National Farmers Federation to Citizens Against Pornography. This Bill could force a particular group campaigning against transsexuality, for example, to accept a transsexual as a staff member. One would assume that in a democracy people are entitled to develop a campaign against various activities that they believe are wrong.
It would seem that clause 44 is not wide enough to cover all categories - or is it? Does "political party" include organisations involved in political activity - for example, lobbying governments about transsexuality? If so, does it relate to the whole organisation or only to the actual activity which is of a political nature? A further inconsistency is what is meant by "political conviction". Does it, for example, include activities of a political nature? On the face of it, it would seem not to, on the basis that a belief is not an act; but then that would suggest that one is entitled to discriminate against a person who is involved in a political activity but who does not hold a political conviction. I could join the Labor Party as a public relations officer, but that would not mean that I share the political convictions of that organisation.
Clauses 44 and 45 provide some exemptions from discrimination on political or religious grounds. Not all convictions are political or religious. In not allowing any exemptions for moral convictions, the Bill discriminates against people who hold them.
I believe that the Bill, in effect, could create a Star Chamber in the ACT, with vast powers which our Australian Constitution and common law not only have never permitted but have protected people from. The Bill reverses many common law principles that have protected Australians against political tyranny for generations. Clause 75 includes the situation in which the commissioner is not bound by rules of evidence in conducting an investigation. That clause also allows the commissioner to determine what procedures will be followed in an investigation or to change those procedures at the commissioner's decision or whim. What this power could mean can only be guessed at.
Under clause 77, the commissioner can compel any person, not just the alleged offender, to attend a private hearing. That clause removes the common law right of the alleged offender to be represented by legal counsel. The mere fact that the Bill contains this clause is an indication that it has not been looked at thoroughly or that there is something wrong with the intention of the Bill. Every individual should have the right to legal counsel in actions of this nature.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .