Page 3718 - Week 12 - Tuesday, 18 October 2005
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MR STANHOPE: You do not care how your power is utilised; you do not care what the legislation looks like. It is interesting that, in a 15-minute speech censuring me for supposedly breaching a confidence, the Leader of the Opposition did not once go to the substance of the legislation and did not refer to the fact that this legislation impacts so directly on the fundamental civil liberties and human rights of every Australian citizen that it has enormous implications for the rule of law within Australia—a rule of law that is fundamental to who we are as a nation.
It is not overly trite to make the point that the issues we are confronting in this legislation are issues that define Australia as a nation and define us as Australians, and those issues essentially go to our values. Australian values are allegedly dear to the heart of the Prime Minister and other members of the Liberal Party. What are Australian values? Australian values are a commitment to our democratic institutions, a commitment to the rule of law and a respect for civil liberties and human rights. You think these count for nothing, or should simply be abrogated because there has been a reference of power to the commonwealth.
Mr Pratt: But not obsessively, Jon.
MR STANHOPE: That is what you are suggesting. You want nothing to do with any oversight or any input, or with the content of this legislation. Most importantly, you do not want to take advice from external experts and you do not want the people who you purport to represent to know what legislation you are signing up to in their name. You need to understand that this particular suite of legislation requires the signatures of the premiers of the states and the chief ministers of the territories, as well as that of the Prime Minister. This is legislation that cannot proceed without nine signatures, or at least without an attempt to achieve nine signatures. I think it is bizarre in the extreme to suggest that you do not want to take the people of Canberra into your confidence, that you do not want the people of Canberra to know what is in the legislation.
You do not even care what it says. You do not care whether or not it is balanced and proportionate; you are simply prepared to refer the powers off, saying, “These are our constitutional powers. We are referring them off to you. We no longer care what form the legislation takes and, more importantly, we have no interest in what the people of the ACT think about the content of the legislation.” It is a complete abrogation of your responsibility to the people who elected you and a sign of enormous disrespect for this parliament that you do not know, do not want to know and do not care. Why have none of you commented on the content or substance of the legislation? What is your view about an appropriate balance of the proportionality of provisions that impact on civil liberties, human rights and the rule of law in Australia, the way it has always operated?
Of course we accept that there must be a response to terrorism. When I accepted the development of a legislation package I accepted that it was necessary for us to introduce laws that would impact on civil liberties and human rights. I am not denying that; I have signed up to it. I accept it but, for goodness sake, let us have a national discussion around whether or not the response is appropriate and proportionate. Let us not do this behind closed doors in secret. Let it see the light of day. Let there be a debate and some agitation around the issues.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .