Statement about Queensland Anti-Bikie Laws

By Tim Wilson

 

First posted on January 8, 2014 as Statement about Queensland’s Vicious Lawless Association Disestablishment Act 2013

 

 

Cartoonist David Hope

A number of media outlets have continued to contact me on the implementation of Queensland’s Vicious Lawless Association Disestablishment Act 2013, commonly referred to as the Queensland Anti-Bikie Laws.
I do not assume the position as Australian Human Rights Commissioner until later this month, or early next month. However, I have previously made statements on the laws. My statements are available here and here. I stand by those statements.

Should you wish to attribute a title to these statements, or those below, I recommend “Australia’s next Human Rights Commissioner, Tim Wilson”. Additional comments can be found here:
“These laws are a classic demonstration of what happens when human rights are diluted from sacrosanct consistent principles for preserving the dignity of the individual to otherwise worthy, inconsistent societal aspirations”.
“These laws are a demonstration of the worst consequences of what happens when people are treated as groups under the law, and not as individuals”.
“The traditional human right of free association is directly under attack from these laws which simply seek to criminalise Australians associating with other Australians.
“Bikies have just as much right to freely associate as all other Australians. If individuals or gangs are engaged in criminal behaviour the government should pursue their criminal conduct to the full extent of the law”.
“The imprisonment of people for free association that are not otherwise engaged in criminal activity is deeply, deeply disturbing. The fact that other States have and continue to look at replicating these laws is equally disturbing”.
“Let me make this clear – if bikies are engaged in criminal conduct they should be pursued by Police, but they should not be charged for simply associating”.
“These laws have been defended by the Queensland governments because some bikies are criminals. The laws operate on the assumption that bikies are criminals. No doubt some bikies are criminals, but that does not justify making free association illegal”.


Tim Wilson at 2012 PRA conference

“Based on media reports of the use of these laws it appears that they are deliberately being used to make examples of individuals who are not, at least at the time, engaged in other criminal conduct”.
“I have deep concerns about the consistent application of these laws and how some individuals appear to be treated once charged, including punishment of criminals because of public comments by their family members”.
“The Queensland anti-bikie laws are inconsistent with an individual’s right to freely associate and should be repealed”.


 



IPA : Anti-Discrimination Bill

There has been some worrying comment about the Human Rights and Anti-Discrimination Bill that the Federal Gillard Labor government wishes bring into effect. A series of articles in The Australian newspaper and elsewhere has given a number of reasons to be concerned.

Today the Institute of Public Affairs has released its submission to the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee. Printed below is the Executive Summary from IPA’s submission. To read the entire submission go to the following web address http://ipa.org.au/library/publication/1356055327_document_211212_submission_-_anti-discrimination.pdf 

The exposure draft of the Human Rights and Anti-Discrimination Bill 2012 [“the draft Bill”] represents a dramatic and radical attack on Australians’ fundamental freedoms under the guise of reforming anti-discrimination law.

The draft Bill makes government the arbiter of behaviour within a substantial range of private political and personal activities. The draft Bill would politicise and regulate private interpersonal relationships in a way they never have been in Australia.

In a very real sense, these laws are not anti-discrimination laws. They are laws designed to give the government authority over our lives in completely new and unjustifiable arenas. This is an excessive and indefensible increase in state power.

The proposed laws give the government explicit power to interfere in almost all facets of human interaction including eighteen areas of public and private life, such as political opinion, religion and social origin. The government is also required to decide what falls into these categories, making the state the total and final arbiter on our most fundamental liberties.

By redefining discrimination to be anything which “offends, insults or humiliates” the proposed law will extend the infamous provisions of the Racial Discrimination Act that led to the Andrew Bolt case to almost every area of public and private life. By expanding the grounds on which people can claim to be discriminated against to include areas such as “political opinion” the law will stifle genuine discussion on almost every topic for fear of legal consequences.

This draft Bill has deservedly been criticised from across the political spectrum as a massive overreach and an unjustified curtailment of individual freedoms.

Democratic governments rely on the free exchange of opinion for their legitimacy. This draft Bill, if enacted, would dramatically limit freedom of speech in Australia.

This submission also raises other concerning elements of the draft Bill. The draft Bill substantially reverses the burden of proof onto the defendant. It introduces a large amount of uncertainty and ambiguity into anti-discrimination law.

The draft Bill introduces a subjective test for decisions about whether the law has been breached. Subjective tests are impossible to comply with and should never be used by the courts.

There is no justification for such a dramatic overhaul of anti-discrimination law, and no place for such extraordinary limits on freedom of speech.