Page 4256 - Week 10 - Wednesday, 21 September 2011
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
Not all shops took up the request. Some could not be contacted and others refused, as is their right. But the principal rightly expected that he could at least ask. Apparently not. Apparently, asking for the support was a breach of the law; it was a travesty of human rights; it was legally discriminatory. These condemnations came from no less a person than the human rights commissioner and of course backed up by the Attorney-General.
You can just imagine the principal’s confusion, his utter disbelief, as he learnt that in the ACT at least there is a legal right to wag. That is what has been established here. That is what will now be confirmed tonight through the vote of the Labor Party and the Greens in this Assembly.
The human rights commissioner was reported as saying in these circumstances that a shop is a service provider and refusing service is unlawful. Further to this, the human rights commissioner told the public that shopkeepers who agreed to help may in fact be aiding and abetting an unlawful act.
As confounding as the condemnation was, I was absolutely astounded by the reaction of the government. Far from realising the absurdity of this conclusion, they joined the chorus of condemnation. Instead of supporting the principal, they poured scorn. This was a simple, sensible act to help kids get a better education, get temptation out of their way and keep them out of the way of temptation, an idea that has been run in other places with some success.
Mr Thompson is reported to have said that in Sydney there are signs up saying, “We will not serve students.” Here in Canberra the idea gained public support. On ABC radio, a report said that listeners held some strong opinions, with one caller believing that the education system was failing to engage our young people. And of course the caller had a good point.
This absurd outcome is a failure of us as a legislature to protect those in the community trying to do the right thing. It is a failure for our students who deserve protection of the right to an education, not pandering to a right to wag. Most of all, it is a failure of common sense. It is not the intent that the discrimination and human rights legislation would be used for this sort of purpose, to threaten a school principal and shopkeepers who are trying to keep students in school or to strong-arm local shopkeepers who are trying to uphold standards for school children.
Indeed, this gulf between common sense and clinical statutory interpretation led to quite an outcry on talkback radio when it was raised. One memorable caller created a quote that I think we cannot better: “What a crock.” That is exactly what it is. At the time this legislation was introduced, we cautioned the government to be alert for unintended consequences. We warned of absurd outcomes when high ideals were not tempered with a sensible dose of common sense.
The outcome we saw in this instance sent a message to this principal that, far from being a local hero, apparently he was a lawbreaker. And this bill would have put an end to this farcical outcome. We moved a motion on this topic and did not receive any
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video