Page 1591 - Week 05 - Thursday, 11 May 2006
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
It is true that we are living in fairly extraordinary times and that this type of legislation differs from the norm. However, to describe it as extraordinary I think puts too high a description on it, especially as we on this side of the house have significant concerns now that the tests and thresholds the police have to undertake and the hoops they have to jump through are very difficult indeed. In fact, this bill, which obviously will be passed, has more checks and balances than any other state or territory bill. I think the other states have got it pretty well right and have faithfully replicated what COAG expected, but that is not the case here.
The attorney says, “Well, Australia has signed up to UN conventions on human rights”—and we have. I think we signed up to conventions going back to the 1940s. We were one of the foundation member states of the United Nations. We took part in some historic votes such as the partition of Palestine. We have certainly played a major role in that body over the years and contributed more than a lot of states have to the support of the UN and the principles of human rights around the world.
That has been shown quite clearly too in Australia. The ACT is the only state with a human rights act that is not necessarily needed. You do not need a human rights act to be human rights compliant. The fundamental rights enunciated in our Human Rights Act and in conventions around the world are things we as a democratic country hold dear.
I think part of the problem when you are at the level of legal development of a country like Australia is that human rights acts can be problematic. I again refer Mr Corbell to an interesting article—and I hope he reads it—on what is happening in the UK with their human rights act and the problems being encountered in balancing the rights of wrongdoers with the rights of the general community. Fundamentally, that is one of the big problems with this particular piece of legislation.
Someone mentioned that any infringements and responses must be proportionate. That is in our Human Rights Act. It is accepted around the world as well, and I think it is accepted by the United Nations. When you face evil such as these types of terrorist acts, which have caused mayhem around the world and killed Australians in Bali and other places—one Australian tragically lost their life in London, and certainly the number of Australians who died in New York on September 11 was in double figures—surely it is very much a question of a proportionate response.
Ours is a civilised country. A lot of people would simply love to be here because of the civilised nature of this society. It is a society that has been built up on things like mateship, the true form of which was recognised in those magnificent Tasmanian miners, in the efforts of those in Beaconsfield and in the great mateship shown not only by the two blokes who were in the mine but also by the whole town, and indeed backed up by the whole country.
Australia has a wonderful tradition of mateship, fairness and giving people a fair go. We also have a good tradition of standing up to evil, being counted when we have to, going in to bat for the underdog and putting our bodies on the line as a country. As I said earlier, 100,000 Australians have died for that—to uphold our values and in the fight for what we see is wrong. In dealing with something as difficult as this—and it is difficult; this is a different type of legislation from what we are used to; and even though we have
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .