Page 5085 - Week 16 - Wednesday, 27 November 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
I remind members also that Dr Hewson intends abolishing the Federal tourism department and has made quite a feature of that in his statement. Again, not only will that mean a loss of jobs in Canberra, it will mean the loss of a major amount of money to the development of tourism in Australia, and I think that is a retrograde step. The only real concession I could find for the tourism industry in Dr Hewson's package was his promise of cheaper petrol prices. As we know, Mr Hawke has recently shot down that promise in flames.
To conclude, Mr Speaker, I think Dr Hewson's tax package would be very much to the detriment of the tourism industry and very much to the detriment of small businesses, in particular, in that industry. I hope Mrs Nolan shares that view. I am quite sure that the tourism industry will come to realise it and will react accordingly in due course. I thank Mrs Nolan for her comments.
Question resolved in the affirmative.
HUMAN RIGHTS AND EQUAL OPPORTUNITY BILL 1991
Detail Stage
Clause 3
Consideration resumed.
MR STEVENSON (3.38): The two major concerns with this Bill are, firstly, that it creates a Star Chamber and, secondly, that it removes our common law rights, or many of them. The principle of using tribunals to try people goes against what is natural justice from our rich constitutional heritage in Australia. It should be that, if you in this Assembly wish to make something an offence, then you should make it an offence before a court. Before a court, defendants have certain rights, certain protections; but it should be only a duly constituted court.
Courts were set up to follow certain rules, to ensure that justice is done. The objects of this Bill suggest that it is done to eliminate sexual harassment, to promote recognition and acceptance within the community of the equality of men and women, to eliminate discrimination, et cetera, some of which may well be laudable. But, if we in this Assembly choose to make things offences, why do we choose to do so outside the protections of a duly constituted court? I would appreciate someone answering that question. Why do we need to set up an alternative court system? That is exactly what we are doing with this sort of legislation.
Why is this sort of legislation introduced? During the debate on the Australian Bill of Rights Bill in the House of Representatives on 14 November 1985 Mr Smith from Bass, in talking about why that legislation was being introduced, what the motivation was for it, stated:
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .