Page 5219 - Week 16 - Thursday, 28 November 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
be intimidated by these pseudo-intellectuals who would prevent open discussion in our society and, instead of getting rid of division, would create it? I think it is a sad commentary.
What we have in this country is not a democracy. We do not have political freedom; we have an oligarchy. Let me give the definition of "oligarchy": "A form of government in which few people have the ruling power". That is what we have in Australia, and that came not from my 1943 dictionary but from my 1980s World Book Dictionary.
Mr Wood: Mr Deputy Speaker, I ask that Mr Stevenson be granted a further extension of time so that he can answer Mr Collaery's comments.
MR DEPUTY SPEAKER: It is up to Mr Stevenson whether he wants to. If you want a further extension, Mr Stevenson, you need leave.
MR STEVENSON: I seek leave to continue talking.
Leave not granted.
Motion (by Mr Moore) agreed to:
That, under standing order 213, the documents Mr Stevenson read from be tabled.
MS FOLLETT (Chief Minister and Treasurer) (12.01): Mr Deputy Speaker, could I just remark that you have shown an incredible tolerance in allowing the debate to continue for the past little while, in terms of relevance. I will not stretch your tolerance any longer. I will address my remarks to the amendment Mr Collaery has moved to the Bill we are debating. Mr Collaery's amendment deals with incitement to racial hatred and incitement or threatening of physical harm on the ground of race. Initially, as members will be aware, our Bill did not contain provisions concerning racial vilification. Indeed, in Australia there are only two jurisdictions where racial vilification is the subject of law, that is, Western Australia and New South Wales.
I think it is fair to say that in Western Australia and New South Wales these provisions were brought in because of particular circumstances that applied in those States. In both States there had been either a campaign of racially based violence or a circulation of literature inciting people to racial hatred, racial violence, and an element of racial harassment. That situation obviously does not apply in the ACT, and thank heavens for that.
Another reason for our not including these provisions in the Bill we have brought to the house is that there are philosophical questions concerning freedom of speech. There have been difficulties in other jurisdictions on just this matter. Given that the circumstances do not apply in
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .