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

None . . Page.. 111 ..

If Justice Kirby's arguments in favour of a Bill of Rights as a concept in the Australian democratic system are correct - and we would say that they are - then different people here would have different views as to who is more authoritative, Jack Waterford or Justice Kirby; but, if you accept what Justice Kirby has to say, then Jack Waterford's argument that it is at the State or Territory level that these issues cause most problems is very sound.

When we introduced the exposure draft of the Bill last year, I said that as the Government we would be seeking a lot of input from the community and would reflect that input. My Bill as introduced today is essentially the Bill as tabled, with such input as I received as Attorney-General up to the point at which government changed. I would acknowledge that I have seen only a part of what I expect to be an ongoing process of input. The most significant change made to the Bill following the exposure draft was made in response to submissions made to me - no doubt now in the government files - by Dr Peter Bailey from the ANU and Dr Marian Sawer from the University of Canberra, who made the point that a declaration of a right to freedom from discrimination was too bold; that it should be qualified with an appropriate measures procedure that ensures that affirmative action programs, or things like the Women’s Health Service or an Aboriginal legal service, are not held to be discriminatory. Of course, that issue was litigated in the Human Rights Commission here in relation to the Women’s Health Service, and it was found necessary to have that sort of qualification. So, that has gone in. There have also been some changes to the ordering of the rights to try to make them more broadly reflect the nomenclature that is used in the international instruments.

I would expect, Mr Speaker, that if this initiative is to proceed there would be further changes to the legislation. Obviously, the Attorney is in the box seat now to advise the Assembly of the outcome of that consultation process. I am sure that other issues that I was not aware of have come out and may well be the subject of very sound amendments to the legislation. There were some suggestions from the Council of Social Service, which I was aware of, and which I received before the change of government, that the enforcement mechanism in the legislation should be removed from the Supreme Court and put down to the Human Rights Commission.

This would be the first Australian Bill of Rights. It is in the Canadian-New Zealand form; that is, it is not an entrenched Bill of Rights. It is a process which enshrines processes. It says that legislation should be construed so far as possible to be consistent with the Bill of Rights, requires the Attorney-General to report to the Assembly on any breaches of the rights set out in the legislation and gives the citizen the right to seek a declaration. Given the importance of that and the importance of it as a trial and experiment, I think it is more appropriate that those declarations be sought at the higher judicial level; hence at the moment we would be inclined to keep it at the Supreme Court level. That was certainly the process adopted in the earlier stages in other jurisdictions.

I am sure that there will be more very sensible suggestions for change. I would hope that the Attorney-General would share with the Assembly suggestions arising from the process of community consultation. Even if the Liberal Party were of the view, when this eventually came to a debate, that they did not want to proceed with it, I would hope that we would get the benefit of the considered views of the Canberra community that will have flowed through.

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