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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 02 Hansard (Tuesday, 2 March 2004) . . Page.. 511 ..

you want from the questions that you ask. That was hardly a ringing endorsement or suggestion of widespread interest in the issue.

Mr Stanhope also said:

My government promised it would not progress a Bill of Rights unless there was strong support for one shown by the Canberra community.

Where is this support, Chief Minister? Are you sure? You are not going to stand there and tell me that you are relying on 120 people in total being bothered to go along to community meetings, are you? Is that your basis for this? Scary! It is very clear that the bill of rights has not been supported by the ACT public, contrary to the Chief Minister’s comments.

As my colleague Mr Stefaniak and many other people have said, and it is worth repeating, over the last year the Canberra community has shown no interest in the human rights issues that Mr Stanhope has forced on the community. Possibly, Mr Stanhope thinks he gets the imprimatur of the Canberra public by saying that people are not against it because they are not writing in or doing much. I have had many emails. Again, quite sadly, the Canberra public know that they are going to have a bill of rights slapped on them whether they want it or not, with no proper consultation.

I do not think that any fair-minded person would be against people having their rights. Every fair-minded person in this place or outside of this place would say that a portion of our community need to have better support and help and their rights to be heard, but do not say that 323,000 people are saying that. I was going to say that this just seems to be using a Rolls-Royce when a mini would fit, but I would not give it that sort of classification. It is certainly a hefty piece of legislation to deal with a small group within our community.

That brings me to another comment by Jason Briant. He said:

So, why then is a Bill of Rights being pushed so hard by some in the legal and human rights fraternity in spite of little evidence of public support for the idea? One cannot help but be suspicious as to whether there is a broader agenda here, an agenda to seek implied rights unlikely to be popular with the electorate. Facing no likelihood of getting their agenda turned into law before a largely hostile electorate via democratic means, the legal and human rights fraternity are instead seeking to find a more sympathetic arbiter on such matters, that being the courts. The instruction to “interpret” laws so as to be consistent with the Bill of Rights is an almost open invitation to judicial activism.

Many people talk about that, but it seems that the government—in particular, the Chief Minister—is not at all concerned about it. Mr Briant continued:

On the basis of past experience (both in Australia and much of the rest of the western world) it would not take long for the judiciary to find all manner of implied “rights” for certain groups or individuals not clearly set out in the legislation.

We are opening Pandora’s box; we are opening a can of worms. This legislation has not been thought through. It is hurried and rushed legislation. Things like this legislation

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