Page 2214 - Week 07 - Wednesday, 16 August 2006
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
It is relevant for us to say that, strictly, we can do that. We could simply not allow them to touch our shores. We can locate them in Nauru. We can isolate them from the operation of Australia’s laws and that is okay. But we can then test that against our human rights obligations and we can ask ourselves whether, if we have subjected ourselves to a bill of rights, that is appropriate. Is that a representation or reflection of the values which we as Australians think are appropriate? We are tested to answer that question.
Similarly, in relation to issues around the way in which we combat terrorism and the harsh measures which we all agree need to be taken to protect ourselves and our community, we can adopt a harsh, unremitting, legalistic view or attitude towards people that we suspect or feel we need to protect ourselves from, but do it in accordance with long held and difficultly gained commitments to the rule of law and justice. Fundamentally, there are implications for our commitment to human rights in relation to harsh and unremitting approaches such as preventative detention, the detention of somebody, the deprivation of the liberty of one of our citizens without charge and without the information of charge, depriving them of their liberty by locking them up and saying, “Look, we are not sure you are guilty of anything. We do not actually have any evidence, but we are a bit suspicious and we need to detain you. We may never get around to charging you. We will deny you the presumption of innocence. We will deny you the right to protest or to access a lawyer in an uninhibited way.”
We do need to have embedded in our law a human rights act which demands that we respond to all the possible human rights implications of that sort of treatment. Sure, at the end of the day there is a balancing act. We need to protect ourselves, but we need to protect ourselves in a way which reflects our values, our commitment to democracy, our commitment to the rule of law, our commitment to civil liberties, our commitment to human rights. Most particularly, and it is relevant today in the context of—
Mrs Dunne: I take a point of order, Mr Speaker. We are noting Mr Stefaniak’s report on a conference on human rights which I understand the Chief Minister did not attend. We are having a very wide-ranging discussion here on human rights. I know that every time we hear the words “human rights” the Chief Minister is out of his box fairly fast and I know that reports of this sort do promote moderately wide-ranging things, but can we get to the point of discussing the conference and moving on to the other items on the agenda?
MR SPEAKER: There is no point of order. The conference, as the report draws attention to, was wide-ranging and the question before the chair is that the report be noted. Any member is entitled to speak on the subject matter for as long as the standing orders allow.
MR STANHOPE: Mr Speaker, one can understand the Liberal Party’s discomfiture in relation to anything to do with human rights. Their strident opposition to human rights and the Human Rights Act is a matter of record and will be a matter of eternal shame. History will judge the extent to which they were so out of step with their community and so out of step with the national sentiment in this regard. They blush at the fact that the ACT’s Human Rights Act has now been accepted by Victoria and is being considered for incorporation by Tasmania and Western Australia and that within a few years we will
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .