Page 2861 - Week 07 - Wednesday, 30 June 2010
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
the context of personal rights being human rights—the human rights commissioner provided a 12-page submission in which she outlined in detail how those personal rights were engaged by this particular piece of legislation.
That was the point I was making, Mrs Dunne. The scrutiny of bills committee dealt with the question of human rights, civil liberties and personal rights in one sentence, acknowledging that, yes, this legislation engages the right to privacy and the right to liberty. The human rights commissioner went on to say that the way in which this legislation engages the right to privacy in relation to the randomness of breath testing leads her to the conclusion, as the statutory human rights commissioner for the territory, that, if challenged in the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court will find that the legislation is incompatible with human rights on the basis of privacy.
I would have thought, Mrs Dunne, that it is reasonable to assume, expect or suppose that the scrutiny of bills committee might have given us a view on whether or not those personal rights and liberties were engaged through this legislation in a way that actually impacted on those rights and liberties, rather than concluding as it does, “You can take comfort from the fact that the scrutiny of bills committee has decided that, yes, this legislation will engage the right to privacy and the right to liberty.”
That is the point I was making, Mrs Dunne, and I make it again and I stand by it, particularly when I see both Mr Hanson and Ms Bresnan claiming that they have no concerns about this legislation’s human rights implications or its compatibility. It may be the case—I am prepared to accept this; the government is prepared to accept—that this legislation might be the best, most human rights, civil liberties conscious, sensitive drug testing legislation in the world. It just might be. But anybody in this place who stands up and puts their hand on their heart today, in the context of the way in which it has been cobbled together, and claims that they know that for a fact, is having a lend of us.
That is the government’s point and position in relation to this legislation and this debate today. We have no degree of comfort or certainty about this legislation. We cannot support this today; any thinking legislator should not support this today, and the government will not. I and ACT government officials do not have a degree of understanding of the implications of the amendments or comfort, having regard to the views of specialists in the field, that this legislation is human rights compliant. I do not know if it is. The Attorney-General does not know if it is human rights compliant. The minister with responsibility for its administration does not know that it is human rights compliant or, indeed, that it will work.
The Attorney-General does not know whether it is human rights compliant. The ACT government’s advisers and officials, who have worked on legislation of this ilk and this sort and grappled with its complexities, do not know today, and are not prepared to tell me that they are comfortable, that this legislation is human rights compliant. Yet the assertions that the proponent and Ms Bresnan make is, “Well, we’re not concerned.”
Mr Hanson, most particularly—less so Ms Bresnan—and he did it again on the radio this morning, asserts that the degree and level of his comfort that this legislation is human rights compliant and represents no issues in relation to personal liberties or
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video