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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 05 Hansard (Tuesday, 25 May 2004) . . Page.. 2174 ..

ways. First, it protects against despotism—government acting against the will of its constituents. Second, and much more importantly, it protects against “acts in which the government is the mere instrument of the major number of the constituents”—

an argument that has been put up by a number of members today as justification for this legislation, and it would seem to be a major issue—

This protection against the tyranny of the majority is the very thing that detractors of rights use most frequently to claim that rights are undemocratic and also undermine notions of parliamentary sovereignty. Such a claim is, if not demonstrably false as a general proposition, particularly specious under the present circumstances of this Inquiry—an Inquiry in which the people can help choose its own destiny and decide on what rights, if any, should be given legal status to serve as a protective agent in the community.

As I pointed out in the in-principle debate, a sub-point in point 5 of the preamble contradicts this fundamental right of a minority to question a majority. That is a right that we protect for the good of all, even if at the time it is inconvenient or annoying.

Preamble agreed to.

Title agreed to.

Question put:

That this bill, as amended, be agreed to.

The Assembly voted—

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Bill, as amended, agreed to.

Adjournment

Motion (by Mr Wood) proposed:

That the Assembly do now adjourn.

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