Page 2848 - Week 07 - Wednesday, 30 June 2010
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
not believe so. She believes there is a range of human rights engaged by this legislation and she believes that in the context of the way in which—
Mr Seselja: She doesn’t support the concept, Jon.
Mr Hanson: She didn’t support yours either, Jon.
Mr Seselja: She has got a fundamental difference of opinion. She does not support the concept. Do you support the concept or not?
MR STANHOPE: Absolutely. That is why we have not completed it. As we strive to ensure that the legislation, when passed, be it this legislation which we expect it to be—
Mr Seselja: You are running away. So is Victoria.
MR STANHOPE: It was passed there before their human rights act was enacted. If you actually—
Mr Seselja: They haven’t looked to repeal it, have they?
MR STANHOPE: No, they have not. But that is an issue for them.
I hear Ms Bresnan most particularly. Mr Hanson does not pretend that he is concerned about breaching the Human Rights Act or about human rights implications. The Greens have traditionally taken a slightly more moral and appropriate attitude to human rights—the great defenders of human rights and of compatibility statements and of appropriate scrutiny. Indeed, if we look at the record in relation to attitudes which the Greens have taken, the demands they have made of this government in relation to compatibility statements, every piece of ACT government legislation is accompanied by a signed statement by the Attorney-General—a commitment, a declaration based on advice from the department of justice—that the legislation is human rights compatible.
Here we have, in the context of legislation considered, say, in the last year or two, a piece of legislation that interacts with human rights, raises the human rights concerns to a greater degree than any other piece of legislation I can remember that has been debated in the last year or so. It has not been referred for inquiry by the scrutiny of bills committee. It has not been the subject of consultation. It is not supported by the human rights commissioner. It is not accompanied by a compatibility statement.
Yet the Greens, most particularly, who are concerned for assurances that all legislation is human rights compatible—indeed, the Greens consistently call on the Attorney-General to provide detailed statements of reasons in relation to human rights—are prepared today to crash through a piece of legislation that the human rights commissioner quite unequivocally raises concerns about. If taken in its current form before the Supreme Court on appeal, it would be found not to be consistent with the Human Rights Act. It would be incompatible and it would actually impinge on the human rights of people that are subjected to or affected by the bill.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video