Page 4278 - Week 10 - Wednesday, 22 September 2010
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
Discrimination Act is correct, that puts these shop owners in an extraordinarily difficult position.
It puts them in an extraordinarily difficult position, because the human rights commissioner is effectively telling them that they will be breaching the law. They will be breaching the law by working with this principal. It is effectively a licence to wag, and it is saying: “We will, as a community, not back the principal, not back the schools, not back the parents and not support them. We will make it as difficult as possible.”
Ms Hunter smirks as I say that, but we have seen a principal who has gone out on a limb, and the government has said, “Sorry; you are on your own.” The Labor Party has said that and the Greens have said that. This Labor-Greens alliance has said that. And I think there is a real concern in the community about that.
Let us go back a few years. When we had the debate about the Human Rights Act, one of the real key arguments—one of the real key concerns—about it was the potential for unintended consequences: the unintended consequences that, when you put in place legislation such as that, mean that what will actually happen is that the rights of ordinary people will be affected adversely and ordinary actions such as we have seen from this principal will be made unlawful. And that is what we have got with the intervention of the human rights commissioner.
I think this is a very open question. I think it is highly questionable that any of those actions that were proposed for shop owners to take would be in breach of the law. I think it is highly questionable. But, because of this intervention, now endorsed by this government—endorsed by this Labor-Greens alliance—it is virtually impossible for these businesses and for this principal to act in this way.
And what we are saying more broadly to the community is: “Do not bother trying, because we are going to find a way to undermine you. We are not going to find a way to support you. We are not going to find a way to make it happen. We are going to find a way to stop it happening.”
The education minister, in his hanging out to dry of this principal, in his abandoning of this principal, is showing that he either has no principles himself, or he has no guts—no guts to stand up to the Attorney-General and no guts to stand up to the human rights commissioner.
I object to that intervention by the commissioner, and I will put it on the record that I object. We as elected representatives should be able to question these things. It appears—in fact, it is crystal clear—today, that there is only one party who is prepared to actually stand with the principal for common sense and for community action in actually dealing with this issue.
The education minister can say, “We have got all these measures.” Well, if the other measures are working so well, why did the principal feel the need to go to the shop owners? If it was really as good as the education minister says it is, why did the principal go to the shop owners? Was the principal just off on a flight of fancy? I doubt it. I very highly doubt it.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video