Page 5091 - Week 16 - Wednesday, 27 November 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
role could one have in life than to be able logically to tell the difference between things? Why is it that words are given bad meanings by those who would seek to change the definitions of words, those who would seek to change our thoughts? Why is this done?
C.S. Lewis in his book The Abolition of Man demonstrates that mankind has shared a basic set of moral assumptions across all recorded ages and nearly all cultures. These traditional assumptions include such values as justice, freedom, protection of children and respect for the old. Lewis sets out the dangers of abandoning these traditional assumptions in favour of rule by experts, in favour of those that would use doublespeak, those that would use meanings other than what the derivations of certain words mean.
I grant that in a society words can mean other things, and I have no difficulty with that. What I am concerned about is a situation where words are meant to mean the entirely opposite thing. I think George Orwell put it rather well. Finally, we have a situation where freedom means slavery, and anybody standing up and saying "I speak for freedom" is just as likely to be clapped in irons and carted away because that, at this time, means slavery.
The word "discriminate" is a valuable characteristic of all people - all the more so of members in this Assembly. It is interesting that Ms Follett would suggest that the word has a negative connotation, and indeed it does. I suggest that Labor Party members have more to do with that negative connotation than anyone else in Australia. That is unfortunate.
What we need is rights. We need words to be interpreted. They need to be interpreted so that they really mean what they say. In this clause, the definition of "premises" says:
(a) a structure, building, aircraft, vehicle or vessel;
(b) a place (whether enclosed or built on or not);
... ... ...
That literally means anywhere. It is very difficult to think of any place that is built on or not, and certainly it is a wide description of premises, which I may refer to later. Most people in the community reading the Bill would believe that "premises" simply means what most people hold to be meant by "premises", not what the interpretation is in the Bill. It is also interesting that the word "relative" is defined in this way:
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .