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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 02 Hansard (Tuesday, 2 March 2004) . . Page.. 517 ..

Bhagwati would never be used to describe conditions anywhere in Australia. The truth has proven far more stark and dehumanising than many people thought.

While there remain governments which treat individuals, groups of people or communities with such disregard, there remains a need for the shared rights of all to be recognised in legislation of the type before us today. It remains the role of those of us deemed to be “citizens” in Australia to ensure that the universal aspect of human rights is not forgotten as we advocate laws and policies under a new human rights framework. We must also remember and consciously include in our policies those who remain marginalised from active political participation.

While asylum seekers remain detained in Australia, indigenous Australians are denied land rights, women are denied equality of outcomes and workers are denied the right to economic justice, fair employment, security and prosperity, human rights law will never be complete. This bill represents a major step forward in the ACT as a jurisdiction recognising the rights and needs of its citizens. I look forward to seeing this legislation passed and the values contained within it given form by the people of Canberra.

MR SMYTH (Leader of the Opposition) (5.47): It is curious that, as we discuss this Human Rights Bill tonight, the Liberal Party, which has always been acknowledged as the party of the individual and individual expression, actually hates bills like this one because they try to catalogue that which is uncataloguable, if there is such a word, whereas the Labor Party, which is traditionally the party of the collective, actually wants to legislate what an individual’s rights are. The irony of that is something upon which we should reflect as we discuss this bill.

I would like to start with some words from Bishop George Browning, the Anglican Bishop of Canberra and Goulburn. In the third paragraph of a letter which I understand he has sent to all members of the Assembly, he speaks about what it is to be an individual, saying:

The Bill speaks of protecting individual human beings. It is, however, impossible to conceive of any human being (least of all their rights) in isolation; we all live in relationship with others and our capacity to flourish, or to live contented and fulfilled lives has everything to do with the strength of the community(s) to which we belong. In other words, the very rights we want to preserve can themselves be perverted when considered only through the eyes of the individual.

It is the eyes of the individual that lead me to claim that this bill is, in fact, probably the Monty Python bill of rights; it is like something out of Life of Brian. Members may remember the scene in Life of Brian when Brian says to his followers, “No. No, please! Please! Please listen. I’ve got one or two things to say.” His followers say, “Tell us. Tell us both of them.” Brian says, “Look. You’ve got it all wrong. You don’t need to follow me. You don’t need to follow anybody! You’ve got to think for yourselves. You’re all individuals!” His followers say, “Yes, we’re all individuals!” Brian says, “You’re all different!” The followers say, “Yes, we are all different.” Then Dennis says, “I’m not,” Arthur says, “Shh,” the followers say, “Shhh. Shhh. Shhh,” Brian says, “You’ve all got to work it out for yourselves!” and the followers say, “Yes! We’ve got to work it out for ourselves!” Exactly.

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