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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 02 Hansard (Tuesday, 2 March 2004) . . Page.. 513 ..

Most rights are being removed, including cultural, economic and social rights, with only political and civil rights remaining. I heard Ms Tucker say that she was very disappointed that the bill has been severely watered down. Why are we having it at all?

Mr Stefaniak: Let’s see if we can bankrupt the territory in two years instead of 10.

MRS BURKE: Exactly. Let’s watch how it goes, and it will. The current proposal is to establish the office of Human Rights Commissioner who, presumably, will also enforce the Discrimination Act 1991. Again, I need clarification from the Chief Minister about what will happen to the Human Rights Office people and their jobs. Perhaps he will clarify that for me.

There seems to be little, if any, substantive concern with the Discrimination Act 1991. (Extension of time granted.) I reiterate: why are we reinventing the wheel? Perhaps Mr Stanhope can tell me that as well. Why, in simple terms, is the Discrimination Act not going to fit the bill? Why are we going to have to go down a complicated path? In fact, it is not complicated. As Ms Tucker said, the bill has been watered down. What a mess!

Tell me why that act is not going to do the job of helping the people in our community most in need, of helping people with their rights. Explain to me and, for the purposes of the public record, have it recorded in Hansard why it will not. Why haven’t you been able to upgrade whatever areas are needed in that act for it to work better? This is bureaucracy gone mad.

The role of the Human Rights Commissioner, on initial assessment, will be only an educative one—if that is not right, please put me right—because the enforcement powers under the original draft bill have been completely removed. Is the commissioner to be a toothless tiger?

It can be and is being argued that the Human Rights Act will further enhance a culture of litigation in Canberra—I have already alluded to that—particularly with regard to so-called frivolous claims. This is poignant. Let’s look at a litigation case against John Laws and Steve Price by a homosexual man in Sydney. The case was related to comments made by both announcers in reference to two openly gay men on the TV program The Block.

Mr Stanhope: What have you got against gay men?

MRS BURKE: No, it is because it is a good example, Mr Stanhope. The plaintiff felt aggrieved by the comments, even though he had never met the gay couple in question. The thing is that it does not matter who they were; it is just that this guy has now stuck up his hand to make some comment about something he heard on radio, not having even met the people in question.

Also note in regard to the frivolous claim argument that the racial vilification legislation in Victoria has allowed and facilitated the Islamic Council of Victoria to take action against two pastors, one a previous Islamic scholar. The legal basis for action is premised on the argument that two recent Islamic converts were in the Surrey Hills audience when

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