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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 09 Hansard (Wednesday, 18 August 2004) . . Page.. 3880 ..

MR PRATT (4.38): Reading back through some of the research that has revolved around the debate into the bill of rights and the bill of responsibilities and other issues, I picked up a piece written by the New South Wales Solicitor General where he was asked to comment on the then current debate about the introduction of the bill of rights to the ACT. The New South Wales Solicitor General listed the pros and cons for implementing a bill and made observations about the worthiness or otherwise of a bill of rights in any jurisdiction and the relevance to Australian life. He said:

I also agree with those who argue that a Bill of Rights focuses too much on individual rights at the expense of social responsibility, community interest and social coherence, and that the proposed bill—

He was talking of the bill then being looked at for implementation here in the ACT—

could encourage a culture where individual responsibility is discouraged in favour of claiming rights through litigation.

That was what the New South Wales Solicitor General thought about a bill of rights and what he thought about the erosion of a culture of responsibility. The point he was making was that the bill of rights proposed by the Chief Minister was not only irrelevant but it was not needed and it was unworkable. He was saying that such legislation would erode the code of responsibilities that underpin the workings of this society and any society. As if modern society needed a bill of rights right now to further erode that eons-old code of responsibilities that has underpinned the development of society and is still extremely relevant no matter how modern society becomes.

Erosion is occurring in the sense of responsibilities that any society is supposed to have. This is a wider western phenomenon, perhaps a by-product of modernisation, developing materialism and easier living, and also the rush to liberalisation. As we as a society become more spoilt, the harder edge of a living that once governed our existence and how we viewed our place in society as individuals has been seriously eroded: somebody else will take care of it; I do not need to pull my weight and, anyway, life is so damn fast I no longer have time to worry about pulling my own weight. The fight or flight syndrome that underpinned our sensibilities very rarely gets a run these days. Until recent times that regularly kicked in to remind us all of our vulnerability and therefore our dependence on others and the need for teamwork. All of that too has broken down.

A bill of responsibilities is surely more important now than ever. It is surely more important than the bill of rights that we have seen recently introduced to ACT society. The erosion in the sense of responsibilities means that such a mechanism needs to be put in place. A bill of responsibility needs to be put in place to shore up the sorts of erosion that I have just talked about. We all need to be responsible. Lawyers should be reminded of their responsibilities and this needs to be enshrined in a bill. That code needs to be there.

For example, lawyers need to know that they have a responsibility to protect the broader rights of society. They have a responsibility to protect common decency and the community interest as well as the rights of the individual that they may be representing. I lament the attitude of some lawyers in modern society, perhaps even too many now, who work quite irresponsibly in my view against the community interest. Come hell or

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