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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 09 Hansard (Wednesday, 18 August 2004) . . Page.. 3882 ..

MS TUCKER (4.47): I am going to speak really briefly to this. The Greens will not be supporting this bill. The bill starts with respect for others, that everyone should respect people who hold a position of authority. Sadly, I learnt as quite a young child, that you do not respect people unless they deserve and earn respect. People in positions of authority, men who wear robes, who have positions of power, often attempt to demand respect from people. Those people abuse that power. The abuse of power is such a well understood phenomenon in our society. I find it unbelievable that a member of this place would bring in a bill that demands that everyone should respect people who hold a position of authority.

Mr Stefaniak: Read the next clause.

MS TUCKER: Oh, the next line:

People who hold a position of trust and authority in our community are required to show respect towards others, and must have ethical standards and serve truth.

So, Mr Stefaniak says subclause (3) qualifies subclause (2). In this legislation, part 1.1, clause 1 (2) says:

Everyone should respect people who hold a position of authority.

Now Mr Stefaniak is explaining to me that that is not true. You do not have to respect people who hold a position of authority unless subclause (3) is being complied with. So, if subclause (3) is being complied with, and the person who holds the position of trust and authority is showing respect towards others, is not corrupt and not abusing that position of power, then subclause (2) applies. This is a really good piece of law, Mr Stefaniak.

The whole notion of the Human Rights Act is based on human rights conventions that have stood the test of time. The understanding of rights is equally wrapped up with responsibility. Mr Stefaniak continues to mislead the community that the Human Rights Act means that individual rights claim precedence over our community’s rights. As Liberal tradition supports individual rights, it is ironic that the Liberals are the ones screaming foul about the bill of rights or Human Rights Act. Of course, they understand that the term “rights” is not as simple as rights; it is about responsibilities of the community as a whole and, in particular, the government elected to represent the overall interests of the community.

So the understanding of a rights framework is bound up with responsibility. That is a fundamental understanding we all have of human rights, even though it does not suit the Liberal Party’s political agenda. It is not interested in overall responsibility being taken by the state and that is threatening to it. It was interesting to note in the developing days of human rights conventions that the conservatives opposed them. They said: this is about communism, be really careful. They were scared of the responsibility aspect of it. Now they talk about the need to bring in responsibilities in the most ludicrous way. I honestly do not think this bill deserves any more response than that. Try to understand what the rights framework is about, Mr Stefaniak, and you will see you can be comforted that it is absolutely about responsibilities.

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