Mr PERRETT (Gympie—LNP) (12.45 pm):
I rise to speak to the Human Rights Bill. This bill is deeply and fundamentally undemocratic. It is flawed. It should not be supported. Those who support this bill are in effect saying they have no confidence in our democratic processes or the democratic system.
That is because it distorts the separation of powers by further empowering judges and disempowering politicians. This bill will change the relationship between courts, the parliament and the executive.
Politicians are answerable to the people. They go to elections. They are kept accountable and answerable to the electorate every time they attend a function, deal with constituents and respond to the media. They are answerable here every time they stand up in this parliament.
Judges are not answerable in the same way to everyday mums and dads, workers, small business people, farmers and retirees who have the chance at the ballot box to deliver their verdict. Our judges are not elected as they are in other jurisdictions. As Professors Nicholas Aroney and Richard Ekins pointed out in their submission.
All real-life political contests concern confrontations between competing rights, interests and objectives. The ability and
willingness of parties to engage in genuine deliberation over contested political matters is dependent on factors that have nothing to do with the existence of a charter of rights.
That is why we should preserve the sovereignty of the parliament. This bill does not. A human rights act will fracture the fundamental foundations of our democratic society. It will do this by allowing judges to issue notices to parliament whenever a law conflicts with any of the broad human rights. It will give the judiciary the ability to ignore the clear intent of parliament. It will allow the unelected judiciary to scrutinise the intent of every piece of legislation that comes before it. It will give the power to the judiciary, not the parliament, to determine whether legislation is inconsistent with human rights. The role of the judiciary should remain as it is: it should speak to the parliament through its judgements.
Honourable members interjected.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER (Ms Pugh): Order! Members, there will be no cross-chamber
chatter.
Mr PERRETT: Even the Queensland Council for Civil Liberties is concerned and states that the final say in matters should lie with elected officials. The fact that this bill is before us today shows the contempt this government has for the parliament and the parliamentary process. It is handing over the rights of legislators in the parliament to the judiciary and will lock this state up in activist manipulated legal processes.
The government is clearly deaf to claims from the public and electorate that the judiciary is out of touch with common expectations. The LNP will not support a bill which gives the judiciary the power to depart from the literal meaning of words in legislation which gives extraordinary power to an unelected body to rewrite legislation. It undermines the very nature of our Westminster political system. That is why the LNP seeks to move amendments to remove the power of the court to make a declaration that a statutory provision cannot be interpreted in a way that is incompatible with human rights.
Professors Nicholas Aroney and Richard Ekins point out that this legislation will ‘constitute a significant change in the relationship between the courts and the parliament and will increase the relative powers of the courts’. They stated that it will ‘politicize litigation, arming courts to participate in democratic politics, exposing them to political criticism’.
It is outright misleading to claim that this bill will protect vulnerable Queenslanders. It will have never-ending unintended consequences which will put offenders before victims. If this bill is passed, sex offenders will be able to appeal decisions to have their supervision conditions overturned. It will destroy the cases from the prosecution because courts will have wider powers not to admit evidence which is held to have been obtained in breach of a person’s human rights. It will undermine the efforts of the police by making police powers to conduct random licence and name checks unlawful. Prisoners will have more power to own goods, such as objectionable material, even if it breaches prison policy. Sex offenders will have greater power to change their name despite it not being in the public interest. Taxpayers will see more applications for prisoners to undergo surgery, such as IVF, which will be granted. Bikies will challenge organised crime laws by arguing they have the right to associate with one another.
Respecting human rights does not require a charter of rights. It is telling that many of the countries which have a bill of rights actually have poor human rights records. Clearly, it is no guarantee at all for protection. The former chief justice of the High Court, Harry Gibbs, said—
If society is tolerant and rational, it does not need a bill of rights. If it is not, no bill of rights will preserve it
Our rights are protected by considered and well-drafted laws. The LNP will always support laws and policies that protect the vulnerable. Queenslanders already have ample rights embedded in state and Commonwealth law through legislation and case law which have evolved over time to reflect changes in our society. I oppose the bill and urge the parliament to support the LNP amendments.