Page 4498 - Week 14 - Wednesday, 23 November 2005
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
We must remember that the federal government has the opportunity to pursue its ideological agenda to such an extent because it has a majority in both houses—a majority that it said it would not abuse. I believe that we are seeing the abuse of that majority. And therein lies a message for the majority government of the ACT as well.
I would have thought that these precautions to make sure we have plenty of safeguards were so obvious that it would be unnecessary for me to mention them now. But apparently not! From all accounts, it does look as though Jon Stanhope stood alone amongst his state colleagues in having the foresight and moral integrity to stand up to John Howard and try to hold him to account for any misuse of these powers in relation to the terror laws. In so doing, he appears to have upset a man who does not like criticism, a man surrounded by other men, and very few women, a man who thinks that any sign of dissent, disagreement or constructive criticism must be crushed before it can be spread—and that seems to be the nature of the sedition aspects of the terrorism laws—who seems to believe that consultation and collaboration are in fact signs of weakness and who believes that you should never say sorry or admit to mistakes.
I believe that disagreement, debate, collaboration and compromise are signs of a healthy democracy. A healthy democracy works on the basis of give and take. I believe that the Labor premiers and chief ministers are a kind of opposition to the federal government and we must remember that the decisions of the federal government may impact very strongly on the ability of state and territory premiers and chief ministers to carry out the policies and strategies that they went to an election with. So I believe that premiers and chief ministers have a right to speak. It is a democracy. The Labor premiers are part of the opposition because we have a majority in both houses and we do not have the ability to do that within the federal parliament.
The proposed industrial relations laws take from the workers and give to the employers and the controllers of capital. Whose interests are being served? The sedition laws take freedoms and security away from anyone who contemplates expressing disagreement with government policies and actions and gives unaccountable coercive powers to the commonwealth. Whose interests are being served? Does anyone seriously doubt that existing incitement-to-violence and anti-discrimination laws did not contain sufficient powers to deal with the purveyors of hate and violence in our society? There are people in prison right now through those laws. I suspect that these examples are what the federal government understands to be give and take.
What would the ACT Liberal Party have the ACT Labor government do? Do they want it to agree with everything that their federal counterparts propose? Everybody knows that the federal government is more swayed by opinion polls than by the opinions of premiers and chief ministers. But what is the response to unfavourable opinion polls? Attack the messenger, play the individual, deliver arguments with a spin that would make Shane Warne proud—attack the messenger and play the individual?
Who can forget the personal vitriol that this government heaped on the United Nations human rights inspectors and Hans Blix. Where is the apology that any principled human being would have offered unreservedly to Mr Blix and his hardworking, competent and brave weapons inspectors? He was right, as we now know. Has there ever been an admission of this?
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .