Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 02 Hansard (Tuesday, 2 March 2004) . . Page.. 451 ..

If the Assembly wants to ensure better protection for human rights, the first step should be to conduct a comprehensive audit of legislation with a view to making the law and administrative practices compatible with human rights, as far as practicable. Areas where human rights are not adequately protected could be targeted, within available resources, and human-rights issues addressed as they arise.

Allan Hall is a very capable, learned gentleman who has held a very senior position. Like many others, he opposes a bill of rights and opposes this very dangerous social experiment the Chief Minister is leading us down.

Mr Speaker, when citizens of a country have very significant rights, any tinkering with those rights has to be done very carefully. These days, giving a certain group of people extra rights invariably means that some other group have their rights diminished. For example, rights that go too far in favour of criminals take away from the fundamental right of honest citizens to be protected by the laws of our land. And this is a real fear many have with any bill of rights here in the territory.

I have great difficulty in seeing how we can end up with a bill of rights that does not lead to all the inherent problems we have seen in other western democracies which have bills of rights. There is nothing in this bill of rights that has given me confidence that that is just not going to be the case. There are a number of problems which just jump out at you, and the opposition will be discussing those in the detail stage. There are some real difficulties.

The only safe outcome for the people of this territory is for this whole idea to be scrapped. I know that is not going to happen, and I think that is a real shame. I have a real fear that, far from enhancing people’s rights, this bill, which will become an act, will actually affect adversely many more people’s rights than it will positively impact on.

No other state or territory in Australia has gone down this path. It has been rejected comprehensively by the other Labor states. The most vehement opponent in Australia in relation to it is the New South Wales premier, and he is not Robinson Crusoe. It has failed at a federal level. The quasi referendum on a few points in relation to it in 1988 failed comprehensively. It is unnecessary.

Democracy is not perfect. But as I said to start with, we have a system that has evolved over 800 years. I do not think it is just pure patriotism that people who go overseas feel happy to come back to Australia, to see the coastline of Sydney appearing or to fly over the Northern Territory and see the Top End. It is a bit more than that, too. Australia is one of the greatest countries in the world. It is a great country because of the nature of the people; our wonderful institutions that have been nurtured, changed, improved, and are always evolving; and our system of law, conventions and culture. We have the ability to change and evolve conventions. We can change our laws when we need to do, so that we can keep up with what society wants. I think we have done that pretty well. We have done it pretty well in terms of rights, be they rights for the most disadvantaged in our community or general rights that affect everyone. These rights are set out in various acts.

If society changes, rights can be changed through acts of parliament. This should not be done and does not need to be done through this legislation. I challenge anyone to say that western democracies that have enacted bills of rights are now better off than they were

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .