Page 3420 - Week 11 - Tuesday, 14 November 2006
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
I think the comparison with the terrorism laws is an apt one. The committee drew attention to the fact that the explanatory statement states merely that the provision is necessary to ensure the attendance of witnesses at disciplinary proceedings involving health professionals. The minister’s presentation speech makes no reference to the power to detain dimension of proposed section 59A.
We have this serious power, this significant proposed power, and no mention is made in the tabling speech. I would have thought this was something that, at the very least, should have been clearly brought to the attention of the Assembly. It should have been something clearly put out there by the government as something it was looking to do.
If it was not deliberately looking to put in a power like this, I guess we need to question the procedures that went into developing this legislation and where they broke down. Who is giving the compatibility statement? What part of the Attorney-General’s area is saying, “No. This is compatible with the Human Rights Act”? On what basis do they believe that a broad discretion to detain someone with no time limit and no apparent safeguards is compatible with our human rights legislation?
Had this been put up by the commonwealth government, it would have been roundly condemned by this government, I am sure. It would have been listed as another example of the Howard government trying to stomp all over the rights of its citizens. The Howard government has never put up anything that is this loosely drafted and which has so few apparent safeguards in such a serious area.
The opposition is very concerned about this. I am happy that the committee brought this to the attention of the government and that the government is now going to act. But I am concerned at the broader issue of the development of this kind of legislation, because sometimes these things can slip through. There is the fact that it was not mentioned in the tabling speech and the fact that the human rights compatibility statement apparently did not pick up this discrepancy with what is in the text of the Human Rights Act.
On the other issue in relation to the amendment moved by Mr Smyth, I think it is clear that there is a majority view in this place on the issue of abortion. I think there is a significant minority in this place who have a conscientious to abortion. The concern here, obviously, on the part of those who have a conscientious objection to abortion is supporting retrospective legislation, which I often have concerns about as a general principle, but also, obviously, for me having a conscientious objection to abortion giving retrospective effect to that very act, which I oppose.
I think, once again, in a similar way to the issues around 59A, it is a serious issue. It might be seen as a minor administrative issue, but for many people in this Assembly who have a conscientious objection to abortion, as with many people in the community who have a conscientious objection to abortion, it is not a minor issue. I would have expected that we would have perhaps a more broad-ranging debate.
I am not going to go into my reasons for that. This has been debated at length in this Assembly. But it needs to be made clear that there are still people, even though it is
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .