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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 02 Hansard (Tuesday, 2 March 2004) . . Page.. 514 ..

the two pastors gave a comparative lecture on the Bible, Koran and Haddiths and felt that their lives were being threatened.

Mr Cornwell has outlined some of the multicultural problems that we may face under this bill. Have you really thought it through? Perhaps you are going to tell me in a moment; I am sure that you cannot wait to do so. I can see that there are going to be some real issues crop up. You have not thought about that.

Senior lawyers in the ACT strongly argue that the implementation of a human rights act would serve only to benefit lawyers who profit from turning community values into legal battlefields. Is that what you want, Mr Stanhope? That is your background. Perhaps that is your ulterior motive. I do not know; you might tell me. You are certainly not going to help the community values aspect of the matter.

Many lawyers argue that adherence to the Human Rights Act will be very arduous on all organisations. As I have said, there will be more red tape, more layers of bureaucracy and more confusion. Let’s blind people. Let’s not keep it simple; let’s make things more difficult for people. For instance, organisations will and must adopt—

Mr Stanhope: Ha, ha!

MRS BURKE: Mr Stanhope sits there laughing. Tell me whether this is wrong: organisations will and must adopt new internal policies to reflect the Human Rights Act. Is that right or wrong? It is wrong; okay. You can tell me why. Some have told us that the most fervent objection to the Human Rights Act has come from senior ACT bureaucrats, who argue that adherence to the act will pose for most departments serious compliance problems and potentially open them to litigation.

If that is not right, you had better tell me. You had better tell your departments as well. If they are going to be open to litigation, you had better make sure that they know and you had better be helping them to put structures in place that will protect them. It is also argued that the Human Rights Act may well serve to benefit criminals by enabling them to escape imprisonment on the grounds of a human rights technicality.

Mr Deputy Speaker, I will not be supporting the Human Rights Bill because I believe in and concur with the notion that human rights are best protected by the strength of the values in the community and, to reiterate Mr Briant’s words, no set of words in and of themselves is capable of guaranteeing that protection.

MS GALLAGHER (Minister for Education, Youth and Family Services, Minister for Women and Minister for Industrial Relations) (5.40): I value the opportunity to speak in support of this legislation, which is important for the ACT and the development of human rights in Australia.

Australia became a party to the Universal Declaration on Human Rights in 1948, an event tied closely to the formulation of international institutions such as the UN and consciously built out of the horror of war and a shared desire for a humanitarian international order. We became a signatory to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights in the early 1980s, which in many ways sparked debate in Australia about the need for a bill of rights.

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