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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 09 Hansard (Wednesday, 18 August 2004) . . Page.. 3885 ..

should be ethical. They are commonsense statements. If the Greens, the Democrats and Labor cannot understand that, and you are going to knock everyone in authority, it is a pretty sick society we live in. You people are the ones in authority. I would hope that you conduct yourself such that you respect others, and you should be deserving of respect from others as well. It is just the mark of a civilised society.

The Democrats called this a ludicrous piece of legislation and said you cannot legislate for this type of thing. On that basis, you cannot legislate for human rights either. After Ms Dundas’ effort yesterday in relation to the criminal code, I am not sure about her interpretation of ludicrous. This legislation is not ludicrous. It is quite a sensible piece of legislation, given the fact that we have had a Human Rights Act since 1 July. Mr Pratt made a number of very good points about why this legislation is needed. What offence can people possibly take to no-one having the right to kill or injure others?

The time being 5.00 pm, the debate was interrupted. The motion for the adjournment of the Assembly having been put and negatived, the debate resumed.

MR STEFANIAK: What possible objection could any reasonable person have to respect for life? It simply states that no-one has the right to kill or injure except in self-defence. Everyone should respect life. The Chief Minister thinks this is some subtle way of bringing in the abortion debate. It is just about respecting life, and respect for the rule of law. We live by the rule of law. We are rather proud of the rule of law. What on earth is wrong with respecting that? What on earth is wrong, as an ideal, with people assisting police and authorities in the course of their duties and in the exercise of their functions? Surely that is a duty of any ordinary citizen in a civilised society. What is wrong with opposing all forms of inhumanity, particularly fanaticism, hate and social exclusion? Yes, they are broad principles, but there are some very broad principles too in the Human Rights Act. The government’s arguments in relation to this just show up the fact that they apply equally to arguments against the Human Rights Act, which, also, as is the nature of those acts, has to be very broad.

The bill provides that everyone has the responsibility to work for the greater good of humanity and everyone must be fair and honest in dealing with everyone else. It contains statements about people not dispossessing people. That has got nothing whatsoever to do with interfering with the very extensive criminal laws we have in this state. It is a statement of principle, a statement of morals, a statement of responsibilities decent people—indeed, all people—should have in a civilised society.

We have put a number of groups in there. It is not exhaustive. It cannot be exhaustive, just like your Human Rights Act cannot be exhaustive, Chief Minister. But it deals with the responsibilities of a number of groups very much in the public eye. I do not know if people possibly think politicians are professionals, but I suppose we are meant to be. So, clause 8 of part 1.1 would certainly cover what we are meant to do. Perhaps we have some additional duties as a result of the role we play in society.

The bill contains some general comments in relation to good relationships between employers and employees. Again, what is wrong with those general principles? The Chief Minister did not mention marriage, family and sexuality, but the principle there is that marriage should be characterised by love, loyalty and permanence, with a guarantee of mutual security and support. Who could reject that?

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