Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2002 Week 14 Hansard (11 December) . . Page.. 4243 ..

MR STANHOPE (continuing):

My understanding is that there were 16 people making presentations. I was advised that eight would be described as people in favour of a bill of rights and that eight were people who were opposed to a bill of rights. That is as it was described to me. But I will take greater detail. I have to say that I trusted in Deliberations Australia and I didn't take detailed briefings on some of the specifics of its organisation and operation. But I know it is a matter of some moment to Mrs Dunne, and I will respect her question.

I have to say that what was outlined in the question is not my experience or my understanding of any advice that I have received in relation to Deliberations Australia and the deliberative poll. Certainly this does concern me. To the extent that I thought the deliberative poll was an interesting experiment in a alternative consulting mechanism, I am concerned that there are some questions around its structure and operation.

I regret as well the language that Professor McMillan found it necessary to use in his letter to the editor. It has to be remembered, of course, that Professor McMillan is one of those who were invited to speak against the bill of rights, and did so. To that extent, of course, these are always matters for judgment, aren't they? It perhaps would have been fairer for Professor McMillan, in providing some objectivity or balance in his letter, to have said, "I should state here and declare that I am opposed to a bill of rights. I was one of those that appeared at the deliberative poll and spoke against a bill of rights."Having said that, I am concerned that-

Mrs Dunne: He is on the public record as saying he is opposed to a bill of rights.

MR STANHOPE: Well it was not in his letter. If he was being fair and objective and truly open, it should have been in his letter, particularly since he was putting the boot into everybody else.

Having said that, I think you have got to go back to day two of the deliberative poll. I thought the structure of the deliberative poll was quite reasonable. A whole day was spent arguing: "Should we have a bill of rights or not? Why: why not?"On the second day-and this is the direct subject of your question-the title of the section, as I understand it, generally was: "If we do have a bill of rights, what should it include?"

The suggestion made by Professor McMillan is the subject of your question. It is perhaps logical to think that you would not put a person who is totally opposed to a bill of rights on a panel considering the question "If we are going to have a bill of rights, what should it include?"I would imagine that the thinking of Deliberations Australia would have been: "Look, we've had an all-day debate about whether or not we are going to have a bill of rights. Some of you may not have come to this conclusion but, for the sake of this session, we are assuming that, yes, the ACT will have a bill of rights. Now, what should we include in that bill of rights?"That was all that was discussed on day two, and the people who were asked to form a panel to answer the question "If the ACT is to have a bill of rights, what should it include?"were people who were described as people who support a bill of rights.

I have to say there seems to me to be a certain logic to that. If you want a discussion about "What would you include in a bill of rights?"you would ask people who support bills of rights, and that is what Deliberations Australia did. I have to say I think that was a very reasonable thing to do.

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .