Page 565 - Week 02 - Thursday, 14 February 2013
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
(1) Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion. This right includes—
(b) the freedom to demonstrate his or her religion or belief in worship, observance, practice and teaching, either individually or as part of a community and whether in public or private.
Paragraph 3 of the motion puts a limit on the right contained in section 14(1)(b) without any reasonable justification in a free and democratic society. The threshold for applying limits on any human right should be high. And we hear that regularly from the Attorney-General. But in this instance he has completely and utterly failed to provide any reason, any logical, thought-out reason in accordance with the law, as to why the important right of religious freedom should be limited in this instance. There is no justification in the motion or in the media attention he has sought today.
Our Assembly is a diverse one. Voters have chosen us to represent them because we may share their policy views or how we fought on an issue or because they share a similar family life or moral values. This is a strength of the Assembly. Our diversity of views, values and experiences is what gives the Assembly the ability to examine legislation and policy to decide on what is in the best interest of Canberrans. And to argue that we should or even could leave the reasons why we were elected when we step onto the floor of this Assembly is bizarre and simply not practical.
When we look at the practicalities, we see the true bungling of this motion by the Labor Party. The motion says that we shall not in any way endorse or be affiliated with any ceremony that involves adherence or affiliation with any religious faith. I can only assume that, should this motion be successful today, when we resume sitting on 26 February Mr Corbell will not be in the chamber because the opening of the sitting day begins with a moment to pray or reflect. Clearly, being giving the opportunity to pray or reflect would be an affiliation with religious faith, and Mr Corbell believes the Assembly should no longer allow members this time.
Advice has been sought from the Clerk on the ramifications, and my understanding of that advice is that since it is such an impossible position to tell whether members are praying during this time, it could be a religious ceremony and would no longer be allowed if this motion passes. That is advice from the Clerk. So that is an example of the ridiculous unintended consequences of this motion.
The threshold outlined in this motion is very low, so low it is very difficult to understand where the boundaries are. We have not had full time to digest it, and advice is still being provided. But, for example, last year the Chief Minister hosted an Iftar dinner with the Muslim community. The dinner opened with a recitation from the Holy Koran by the Imam Konda. Now, does this contravene the paragraph of this motion? Again, advice has been sought, and the advice suggests that it may. But, again, it is open to interpretation.
But community groups associated with religious organisations would be discriminated against. And that is what is clear. They could not use any reception areas, purely on the basis that they include an element of religious faith. The Clerk states that this would prevent sponsorship by a minister to use Assembly facilities to commemorate
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video