Page 3857 - Week 12 - Thursday, 29 October 2015

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


This is an important debate. I have appreciated the engagement I have had, both the briefing with Mr Rattenbury and the engagement with various groups in the community on both sides of the debate. As we move forward on this it is apparent that this legislation will be passed and that the amendment that I will be moving will not get up. While noting that result, regardless, we need to move forward with respect and tolerance for the range of views on all sides of this debate. Indeed I will be doing so. There would be an opportunity for politicking here; I do not think that would help in this debate, to be frank. There are plenty of opportunities for us to politick on various issues. I am not sure that on this one it would be particularly helpful on either side of this debate. Many of us are engaged by these issues and they are matters for deep thought and consideration.

I am sure that, philosophically, there is a great deal that we would agree on, on a range of these issues and in this bill. As I said there is a matter of balance that engages us all. My amendment makes it clear that we support some of the intent of this bill. I think it may be implicit under other legislative instruments. Certainly we should not be having behaviour that would actively hinder, intimidate, interfere with, threaten or obstruct, or capture visual data, with regard to this specific legislation. We should not physically prevent someone from accessing the facility. But it does become problematic then, if that is said in this bill, and while acknowledging those elements of the bill, if there is also a blanket ban on any form of protest, be it a silent vigil, be it a nun praying or be it someone standing respectfully in silence. That will then be banned under this legislation, and I think that is where this becomes problematic, on balance, and it is where it becomes a threshold that will lead me to move my amendment.

The desire for free speech and lawful assembly is certainly one that is supported more broadly across our community. I looked for examples and I found the website of the Bob Brown Foundation. On the front of the website of the Bob Brown Foundation, there is a heading that says: “Say no to Hodgman’s harsh protest gag law. United we stand for free speech and peaceful assembly.” So these are issues that would engage those on all sides of politics. I know that Mr Rattenbury has argued for free speech and peaceful assembly and has been an active campaigner on issues that are dear to him in the past, in his active role in Greenpeace. So it is clear that they are fundamental principles across the political spectrum for all of us.

It is important that we recognise and respect that there are people who hold different views within our society. That is an important principle that we hold dear, certainly within the Liberal Party. We need to make sure that freedom of speech remains a principle, but not without limitations—and there are limitations. But restrictions on freedom of speech need to be done very judiciously. That is a founding principle in many ways of the Liberal Party, dating back to Sir Robert Menzies.

In terms of the practical aspects of this legislation, if we were to agree that the legislation could be amended in accordance with the amendment that has been circulated, the fact that it would be accepted that we should not have harassment and the prevention of recording of images and so on, and the bill would then exclude the issue of the blanket ban on protest, would mean that by their nature those protests


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