Page 155 - Week 01 - Wednesday, 13 February 2019
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
Mr Hanson interjecting—
MADAM SPEAKER: Mr Hanson, you will get your chance for a question.
MR GENTLEMAN: What is occurring is simply a patching over and re-allegiance with a different group. ACT police have acted very successfully in ensuring not only that we have some 25 per cent of criminal gangs behind bars but that we have a further 20 to 25 per cent facing the courts and ready to be locked up.
Legislation—human rights
MR HANSON: My question is to the Attorney-General. Attorney, you have stated on many occasions that the reason for your opposition to anti-consorting laws is the human rights considerations. The editorial in the Canberra Times on 16 September states:
The human rights values of the few shouldn’t override the … safety of the rest of the community.
Attorney, why do you continue to put the rights of the few over the safety of the rest of the community?
MR RAMSAY: I will answer the question clearly and succinctly: we do not. On the accuracy of the quotation, I commented yesterday that the Canberra Liberals like to quote things selectively and choose the particular words that suit them. Let me say it once again: there are two things that have guided our work all the way through on this law and on other laws. One certainly is the human rights implications. We will not step away from the fact that our jurisdiction is a proud human rights jurisdiction. In fact we have had it reinforced to us, including through ACT Policing, that our human rights stance enhances the way this community works, which makes us a safer community.
The second thing is that we have always said that the guiding principle will be that we will make sure that laws are effective—human rights and effective. What we have said over and over again, and I repeat for the Canberra Liberals very clearly today, is that we will not provide laws that the evidence says are not effective. We have no intention to provide ineffective laws. Again, I draw attention to the New South Wales Ombudsman’s report and to the work that has been done through Bond University and others. Anti-consorting laws and the criminal organisation control orders that are lifted so confidently as something that would wipe out the problems here are simply not effective laws. We will not provide ineffective laws.
MR HANSON: Attorney-General, what assessment has been made by the government of the impact on human rights under section 9 and section 18 of the Human Rights Act, that is, the rights to life, freedom and security of the person, by failing to introduce anti-consorting laws?
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video