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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 02 Hansard (Tuesday, 2 March 2004) . . Page.. 569 ..

check on the excesses of executive power and they are essential to a functioning democracy, as is the executive and the legislature.

There is little evidence—in fact, I do not think there is any evidence at all; it would have been useful for the scrutiny of bills committee or the shadow attorney to refer to this—of the extent to which the independence of the judiciary or respect for the rule of law has been undermined in the United states of America, Canada, the United Kingdom, New Zealand or any of those other western common law democracies which have introduced a bill of rights into their domestic legislation.

Where is the evidence? Where is the evidence to back up the claims just made about the diminution of respect for the judiciary or the extent to which there has been some weakening of the democratic institutions in those nations—those great, powerful, democracies—as a result of their having introduced and legislated a bill of rights, either statutorily or constitutionally in their nations? You cannot point to it, because it does not exist.

It is an absolute nonsense to suggest that the democratic institutions of the United Kingdom, or respect for the judiciary in the United Kingdom, have weakened as a result of the fact that the United Kingdom, the home of the common law, acknowledged that the time had arrived to seek to protect rights through mechanisms other than common law, as a result of which they legislated a bill of rights in their Human Rights Act six years ago. The strength of that democracy, the strength of those institutions, respect for the law and respect for the judiciary and the courts in the United Kingdom has not wilted or been affected one iota as a result of that. Nor has the strength of the New Zealand democracy, the democratic institutions of New Zealand or the courts of New Zealand been affected one bit in the last 10 years of experience of the New Zealand bill of rights.

This is absolute nonsense. It is scaremongering nonsense that is not based in fact or reality, which has no appreciation of the operation, role or functioning of bills of rights in any other western democracies, the common law nations of the world. It is just arrant nonsense that has been dished up here tonight.

MS TUCKER (10.55): I agree with the comments of Mr Stanhope, but I think Mr Stefaniak and the Liberals generally, going through the previous section as well, were taking a position which seemed to indicate that they had not read section 28 on the limitation of human rights. I mentioned this in my in-principle speech but I think it is important to again make it quite clear if the opposition were genuinely not aware of it, although Mr Stefaniak obviously is aware of it now when he wants to address clause 28, criticise the report and raise certain issues.

Some of the other members seemed to have no understanding of the fact that there are competing rights and that rights are taken in the context of the general welfare of a democratic society. This is quite clear in the committee report, which hopefully has been read by members on the other side, although some of the comments made tonight make me think they have read the report.

I also want to talk briefly to some of the issues raised by Mr Stefaniak. I will quote from one section of the report. Although there are plenty of other references that we could go to on this, I will not do so, for the sake of time. On the question of integrating economic

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