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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 09 Hansard (Wednesday, 18 August 2004) . . Page.. 3886 ..

Most of these statements are taken from the draft declaration that took some time to do and which was a very good stab at a universal declaration of responsibilities to complement and work with a universal declaration in relation to human rights. It is not right to have one without the other. So the groups opposing this show their complete hypocrisy in their argument on their Human Rights Act. The arguments they have made against this piece of legislation are equally applicable against the Human Rights Act, which they were busting a gut to get in and make the ACT the first place to have such an act. We do have such an act. We are not going to have this bill, because of the usual suspects in this Assembly, the leftist groups of the Assembly, the Labor Party, the great standard bearers of one of the Chief Minister’s pet projects, the Human Rights Act. No other Labor Party in the country is keen to go down that path, and for good reason. This one is.

Of course, the Greens and the Democrats are jumping on the bandwagon to introduce a Human Rights Act. I would not have attempted to introduce this bill if we did not have a Human Rights Act. That is why the Liberal Party has introduced it. It is a shame it is now going to be knocked out. We will now see how Mr Stanhope’s act works without any countering act in relation to responsibilities. I am quite concerned to hear, it only being 18 August—Long Tan Day—and the act has been in now for one month and 18 days, that already a number of lawyers are saying that some very interesting cases will be taken to court. This is going to open up Pandora’s box. It is not going to be good for the community. On balance it is going to be a lot worse. It will probably detract more from people’s rights than it will enhance them. There is nothing really to counter that now in the form of an act like this.

We would not need this type of legislation in a place like the ACT if we did not have a Human Rights Act. We do not need a Human Rights Act. One thing in what the Chief Minister says I agree with: rights cannot exist without responsibilities. Everyone in a civilised society basically should work reasonably well together. You cannot legislate for that. He said you cannot legislate for certain things. Well, Chief Minister, if you cannot legislate for responsibilities you cannot legislate for rights. You have, and there are some double standards here in the argument by the ALP, the Greens, and the Democrats. That has been shown today in their opposition to this bill.

Question put:

That this bill be agreed to in principle.

The Assembly voted—

Question so resolved in the negative.

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