Page 2220 - Week 07 - Wednesday, 16 August 2006
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
We have had debates in this place over the rights and wrongs of it matters not, but members might recall—I am sure Mr Stefaniak does—the one on the burnout legislation and the withdrawal of property. We were concerned, and, I think, legitimately on the part of the Assembly, to debate that. If we were not vigilant about the possibility of an infringement of human rights in the context of subordinate legislation, it would not have occurred.
I do not actually agree with Mr Shearan from New South Wales, but I do applaud the process prior to our bringing in the Human Rights Act, because I see another layer there. One of the issues that the committee secretariat had in advising the chamber about the infringement of rights through subordinate legislation related to having some sort of guiding principle to relate to. In fact, we were talking about comparison with other pieces of legislation, often international pieces of legislation. I can remember having provisions within the Canadian bill of rights brought to my attention when I was on that committee. I think we really do need to have both. I notice that Professor George Williams, in talking about who best protects rights, the legislatures or the courts, made the argument that both institutions are required.
Mrs Dunne: It won’t go away, Andrew. You are just extending the pain.
MR HARGREAVES: Mr Speaker, I just referred to the panel discussion about who best protects rights, the legislatures or the courts. I have repeated that because Mrs Dunne interjected. If she continues to interject, I will continue to repeat it. Professor George Williams suggested that both institutions are required, and I agree with him very much. The problem is that some legislatures, as Professor Williams says, have legislated against human rights. That can still happen in this place, but an explanation has to be made to the people through their elected representatives as to why those human rights can be infringed upon in the interests of the common good. It is that debate, in fact, that we are enjoining at the moment with respect to the federal government’s antiterrorism laws and the fact that they are hell-bent on infringing people’s rights and privileges and amenity to peace.
I noticed that in this report there was no defence of the federal government’s immigration and antiterrorism legislative intentions. That is nowhere in this report. I would have assumed that such a conference would have canvassed that issue, but it is not mentioned there. I also noticed that there was nothing in it regarding what I believe to be an infringement upon the religious rights of citizens of this country or people wanting to become citizens of this country: parliamentary secretary Andrew Robb wants to have an English test for people wanting to take out citizenship.
I know some people who have been here for 30 years and who have a fairly poor command of English, but they have contributed significantly to the wealth of this country. To demand of them an English test is just insulting in the least. Of course, they will not take out citizenship. They are then discriminated against, as would be the people affected by the insertion in the national action plan of a clause requiring Muslim clerics to be taught about Australian culture and values. That is mandated discrimination. No such provision talks about religious teachers from overseas who are Buddhist or Hindu, members of Christian extremist groups or even the Southern Baptists of the United States of America. There is nothing on that, but we are quite happy to discriminate against the
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .