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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 09 Hansard (Wednesday, 18 August 2004) . . Page.. 3879 ..

means, there are, I think, quite a number of problems that can arise out of this particular phrasing. Does this mean that teachers should not be able to comment on their own wages and conditions, when pay plans and wages and conditions for teachers have been a constant political issue in this country? In fact, just a few months ago, we saw teachers protesting for a number of days out the front of this Assembly. They were, quite clearly, making a political statement.

I think that, with this particular clause, the position has been put forward that teachers should not be able to comment on their own working conditions. That is a terrible attack on the rights of teachers—people in our community whom we trust to educate our children and young people. It attacks their rights in determining their employment conditions and basically says that teachers do not have a right to free speech.

In a free democracy like the one that we try to espouse in the ACT, how could we possibly move to limit the freedom of speech of our teachers? This is one of the many reasons why I cannot support this bill. I particularly note clause 13, which states that no-one may disadvantage someone because of their sexuality. This is something that is already enshrined in our Discrimination Act. It is an idea that I support, but I find it an interesting proposal to come from the Liberal Party since they have opposed every attempt, or almost every attempt, in this Assembly to remove discrimination from people based on their sexuality. I think the Liberals need to go back and re-examine their justice policy. I understand that the policy is clearly abrogating the responsibilities that Mr Stefaniak believes should now be enshrined in law.

I find clause 17 also of concern. The bill states that a person who breaks the law has a responsibility to confess and accept appropriate punishment. Our legal system has always been based upon the common law right to silence in criminal proceedings and the presumption of innocence until proven guilty. The Scrutiny of Bills report on this bill goes into some detail about this issue, including the fact that it directly conflicts with the Human Rights Act. It appears that, once again, this bill is looking to fundamentally restructure our legal system, although, once again, there is no explanation as to how this responsibility would be enforced.

My final comment on this piece of legislation is that it contains no qualifications on who has to hold these responsibilities. Is the proposal that small children or the mentally ill are as equally bound by all these responsibilities as adults in this community, despite the fact that they may not be able to understand them? This is something that I think needs to be worked through. We recognise in our laws that there are people who have different levels of comprehension of the society around them and that means a different level of comprehension of the laws around them. That is something we have respected in our judicial system for quite a number of years. But it is very unclear whether or not that is to be continued with this charter of responsibilities.

Clearly, this bill is a knee-jerk response to the Human Rights Act. It is ill conceived and unworkable. My impression is that the Liberal Party has never seriously believed that this sort of legislation should be enacted in the territory. This whole exercise is a cheap political shot. If this is the type of wild and poorly written legislation that the alternative Attorney-General wants to introduce in the ACT, then I think the people of Canberra should be severely worried about what might happen at the next election and consider their vote very wisely.

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