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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 02 Hansard (Tuesday, 2 March 2004) . . Page.. 539 ..

engaged with reality. This clause is not engaged with reality. The absurdly sweeping statements in this provision make it clear that it has nothing to do with reality. It is a symbolic provision; someone decided we needed a futile gesture. The danger is that someone else will make a mistake and take it for reality. It should be opposed.

MR STEFANIAK (8.44): I concur with what Mrs Dunne said, especially in relation to subclause 8 (3). Subclause (3) is an interesting one because it says:

Everyone is equal before the law and is entitled to the equal protection of the law without discrimination—

And as far as that goes it may be okay, but then it says:

In particular, everyone has the right to equal and effective protection against discrimination on any ground.

Looking at this clause, which fundamentally makes sure that everyone has recognition and equality before the law, it is somewhat inconsistent with another part of the bill, the preamble. Paragraph 7 of the preamble states:

Although human rights belong to all individuals, they have special significance for Indigenous people—the first owners of this land, members of its most enduring cultures, and individuals for whom the issue of rights protection has great and continuing importance.

Does that mean that indigenous people in Australia are going to be treated differently, and is that contradictory to clause 8, where everyone is meant to be equal? I find that preamble quite patronising, as I am sure a lot of indigenous people would. That seems to be somewhat contradictory to clause 8. It is another problem, over and above the very valid points that Mrs Dunne makes. There are real problems with this clause, and the government should redraft it. Mrs Dunne is right to suggest that it should be opposed.

MR STANHOPE (Chief Minister, Attorney-General, Minister for the Environment and Minister for Community Affairs) (8.46): I will just make the point but will not labour it because I know it will get me nowhere, that much of the comment in the presentations from members of the opposition today simply misunderstands the operation of the act and the provisions in the legislation. The comment from the two members just now proceeds in complete ignorance of the effect and impact of this legislation and the way it will be interpreted by our courts, in complete ignorance of the bases on which the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights would be interpreted and in total ignorance of the bases on which the rules of international law are interpreted and applied. They are interpreted and applied on the basis of comparisons that would be made or of decisions that would be made on objective and rational grounds. I am not going to keep saying it in response to comments that are made, but I need to say it once for the record. The law is not an ass, despite what you seek to make of it tonight. The rules of international law are interpreted on the bases of some objectivity and some rationality, and on the basis of decisions that are made for legitimate purposes. The examples that have been propounded just now are absolute nonsense. They’re an insult to the intelligence not just of this Assembly but of the Canberra community.

Clause 8 agreed to.

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