Page 2529 - Week 08 - Thursday, 30 August 2007
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
defies understanding why the ACT government has such a contemptuous and cavalier attitude to the people of Woden and the children that use that facility that it has not sorted out this mess long before it has reached this level of concern.
I also want to make brief mention of the ACT Human Rights Commission and the political activism that is very much a feature of that commission. Some serious issues have been raised about the ACT Human Rights Commission, which has been among a number of the government’s projects in recent years. Of course, we can now see why. It is clear that the purpose of the commission to some extent seems to be to function as a political body to provide ammunition to the Chief Minister and to further his agenda.
It was amazing recently when the Chief Minister requested the commission to advise him on the Australian government’s emergency measures in Northern Territory indigenous communities. The commission responded to this request with a letter—you can read this on the website—that sets out its objections to these measures. The letter purports to assess the rational connection of the emergency measures with the problems in Aboriginal communities, and in the eyes of the commission it is found wanting.
There are blatant policy considerations in this assessment, as the commission apparently sees itself as the arbiter of policy considerations throughout Australia. The commission ultimately advises that its view is that the measures may not comply with ACT legislation. Does the Northern Territory not have its own legislation? The response was the basis for a diatribe by the Chief Minister against the Australian government.
The ACT Human Rights Commission has been vocal in its criticism of the Australian government’s actions to stem problems in Aboriginal communities in the Northern Territory. It has been critical of the fact some of these actions will apply only for these communities and will be “racially discriminatory”. Aside from the fact that these actions are completely outside the jurisdiction of an ACT commission, this is a ridiculously selective objection.
Indeed, this is not the only instance where the ACT Human Rights Commission has sought media coverage on issues occurring outside the ACT. The commission has appeared in the Canberra Times on issues such as refugee policy and the incarceration of the admitted terrorist sympathiser, David Hicks. I mention this because it is vital for public service entities that are touted as apolitical bodies to avoid attempts to score political points.
Too often we get people in this part of the world sitting here and pontificating on the problems of people in areas such as the Northern Territory. I am not one of those people who have just a Canberra view of the world. I have been to the Northern Territory and I have been to Arnhem Land. I have sat on the alcohol advisory committee. When those who were looking for fashionable angles could not declare any interest in the needs of the Aboriginal community I went there myself to talk to their leaders. But instead this group has come out with its own long-distance assessment and it has started dictating to the commonwealth government in those areas where it thinks it is not acting appropriately. There are other issues relating to
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .