Page 1902 - Week 06 - Thursday, 8 June 2006
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
to be, quite consistent in relation to our opposition to the legislation. You rejected our alternative; you might yet be forced to accept it. Certainly the territory parliament has every right to write to the Governor-General, and in that we support you.
DR FOSKEY (Molonglo) (11.02): I cannot help but speak strongly today. I have listened to Mr Stefaniak put his case and I have listened to Mr Corbell put his case. Not surprisingly, I come down fully in favour of the government’s motion.
There are a number of reasons. This is not a knee-jerk response. As far as I am concerned, there are two primary attacks in the federal government’s threats, and I am very sorry that the opposition did not respond to them. First of all, perhaps first and foremost, typifying the whole of the Howard period of government is an approach to, and a vision of, society that excludes the rights of minorities. In fact, we might see this as the Howard-Ruddock threat, because I am sure that Ruddock is just as much involved. I must say that quite a number of Liberal people in the federal government do not agree and have expressed that view to their leaders.
What we are seeing here is social engineering on a grand scale. It is a denial of what people already do and a denial of people’s human rights. It is a positioning of a one very much larger group of people above another in the hierarchy of rights. It is antithetical to a fair and just society. The ACT has always been accused of social engineering, but I think we would have to admit that this is social engineering on a much larger scale by a government that wants to position itself as being more powerful than our own.
I believe that what we are seeing is a campaign at the federal level to reduce the power of other legislatures. The federal government has been doing this through the use of economic tools. We know that the GST was partly about increasing the federal government’s power over the economies of states and territories. That is a very powerful tool for manipulating states and territories, but it is not quite enough. We have the economic right, but we also have the moral right. The federal government has chosen to misrepresent those views.
I would say that there is a particular attack and focus on the Australian Capital Territory because, although our human rights legislation does not go as far as the Greens would like it to, it is setting a hurdle higher than the federal government could, or would want to, reach. That human rights legislation could be contagious, because Victoria has just introduced a bill of rights and there is a growing national campaign for a bill of rights. This is not something that the federal government wants to see.
The Liberal opposition, I thought, would express a view today that showed that it recognises that it is between a rock and a hard place. It may still remember that it is descended from a proud tradition, a respect for civil liberties and freedom from despotic, autocratic governments. That, I believe, is the origin of liberalism. It is a tradition, a particular political line that has done western society a great service.
If it retained those traditions, it would be up in arms about the federal government’s autocratic and moralistic suppression of legislation that enhances the civil rights of a group that has, from time immemorial and usually under the guise of religion, been denied the same rights as the majority of Australians. The opposition must feel torn
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .