Page 5088 - Week 16 - Wednesday, 27 November 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MR STEVENSON: Carmel Maher says that this gives people rights. If it gives people rights, it certainly takes a great number away. How can it give you a right when it removes the right to legal representation? How can it give you a right when it will not allow you not to answer questions if the answers incriminate you? How does it give you rights if it compels you to present written documentation to the Assembly, no matter that that is privileged documentation?
Perhaps Carmel Maher has been along to a counsellor, a doctor, a church leader or anybody else that any of us might go along to for counselling. If the commissioner so chooses to declare that he wants that information, that he wants that written documentation presented, the person has no right whatsoever to protect Carmel Maher's or anybody else's rights. He is compelled to deliver that documentation. How does that give someone rights when we destroy so many rights?
When we look at members of the Labor Party giving people rights, I suggest that in the past they may well have done that; but many of the people they have in their group these days no longer do those things. Once again, we all know that they had a proud tradition of giving citizens' rights - the right to say no to objectionable legislation and other rights under citizen-initiated referenda - but those rights were taken out of the Labor Party national platform in the mid-1960s. Unfortunately, they no longer fight for people's rights, although they say that they do.
Question put:
That the clause be agreed to.
The Assembly voted -
AYES, 16 NOES, 1
Mr Berry Mr Stevenson
Mr Collaery
Mr Connolly
Mr Duby
Ms Follett
Mrs Grassby
Mr Humphries
Mr Jensen
Mr Kaine
Dr Kinloch
Ms Maher
Mr Moore
Mrs Nolan
Mr Prowse
Mr Stefaniak
Mr Wood
Question so resolved in the affirmative.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .