Page 2862 - Week 07 - Wednesday, 30 June 2010
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
civil liberties relates to the scrutiny of bills committee report. He said it again this morning on ABC radio. Mr Hanson asserts that he has no concerns about the human rights implications or impact of this legislation because of this report of the scrutiny committee.
This report of the scrutiny committee is three sentences long. It says, in relation to human rights:
The current scheme of the Act for random testing in relation to alcohol—
not even drugs—
consumption engages various human rights and particular provisions of the Human Rights Act, such as the right to privacy and the right to liberty.
It is on the basis of that finding of the scrutiny of bills committee that the Liberal Party are publicly declaring that this legislation is human rights compliant. What a long bow to draw that is.
The scrutiny of bills committee declares that the alcohol testing legislation engages the right to privacy and the right to liberty; it does not even talk about this bill. It does not draw any conclusions; it does not discuss the human rights implications. Yet, like Chamberlain returning from Munich, he waves the bit of paper from the scrutiny of bills committee and says, “I have a bit of paper from the scrutiny of bills committee which gives me comfort that this legislation is human rights compliant and does not unduly trespass on personal rights and liberties.” You just cannot say that. You can say it on the basis of some of the conclusions that Ms Bresnan has arrived at, on the basis of an assessment of some of the issues around causality and connection with road safety etcetera and the work that has been done. But do not tell me, as Mr Hanson has been running around telling everybody who cares to listen, that the scrutiny of bills committee has declared that this legislation is human rights compliant. It has done no such thing, and yet that is the basis on which Mr Hanson claims that he has no concerns.
As I said before, it may very well be that this legislation does not unduly impinge on human rights. It may be that the government will concede that this legislation is compatible with our Human Rights Act; that it is a proportionate response to a significant issue. But do not tell me that anybody in this place, in the face, most particularly, of the Human Rights Commission’s concerns, can stand here—particularly when, as a result of the fact that this is private members’ legislation and not government legislation, we have this very convenient little exclusion that private members’ bills do not require a compatibility statement, and of course there is not one; one could have been sought but it was not—and declare absolutely that they know that this legislation is human rights compliant, in the absence of external scrutiny, advice from the department of justice or the involvement of the Attorney-General, who is charged with making those declarations. To rely, in the way that you have, on the scrutiny of bills committee, and then to stand up here and defend it, is just nonsense—and you know that it is nonsense.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video