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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 02 Hansard (Tuesday, 2 March 2004) . . Page.. 563 ..

MR STANHOPE: This is the only place in the Western world without one!

MR PRATT: Quite seriously, we will become the laughing stock of the Western world. I look forward particularly to clause 35. Check out clause 35, Mr Stanhope, the dear leader.

MR STANHOPE (Chief Minister, Attorney-General, Minister for Community Affairs and Minister for Environment) (10.32): I want to reflect on the extent to which the Liberal Party in this place are belittling the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. I remind them at this juncture in the debate that is was their esteemed and I think most successful and respected leader, Malcolm Fraser, who negotiated the ICCPR on behalf of Australia. It was Malcolm Fraser who adopted the ICCPR and it was Malcolm Fraser and the Liberal Party who introduced the ICCPR.

Malcolm Fraser negotiated each of these clauses that are causing the Liberal Party such mirth and hilarity today. It was the Liberal Party of 20 years ago, under the leadership of Malcolm Fraser, that negotiated it, agreed to it and introduced it into Australia. Keep up your derision; keep up your belittling and keep up the nonsense. At the end of the day as you pour this mindless, childish, scorn on a most serious piece of legislation, just acknowledge that it was Malcolm Fraser and the Liberal Party who negotiated the ICCPR and acceded to it on behalf of Australia.

MR STEFANIAK (10.34): Mr Pratt might be wrong in saying we will become the laughing stock of the western world because, fortunately or unfortunately, quite a few countries do have bills of rights. But we will certainly be the laughing stock of the rest of Australia because even your Labor colleagues, particularly Bob Carr, are absolutely dead set against nonsense such as this.

If anything comes out of this debate tonight it will be the huge problems this bill is going to cause, such as problems with the right to own property and the right to safety and security. Try defining some of the other rights here. I think it will be an absolute nightmare for the Supreme Court when matters come before it in relation to this piece of legislation. I think that the idiocy of putting forward something like this is coming home to roost through the debate tonight.

I will refer to some of the points in what we are debating cognately now. Firstly with freedom of movement, it is interesting that we recently passed some legislation allowing unions an unfettered right to go into a workplace—much greater even than that of police. I have no particular problems with clauses 14 and 15, but I was interested to see—I am not sure if Mr Cornwell mentioned this; I would be surprised if he did not, given his views on graffiti—that clause 16, freedom of expression, subclause (2) gives that right. It says:

This right includes the freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of borders, whether orally, in writing or in print, by way of art, or in another way chosen by him or her.

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