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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2002 Week 1 Hansard (11 December) . . Page.. 87 ..

MR STANHOPE (continuing):

It is not only important to put human rights into practice; we must put these principles on the table, so to speak, so that everyone can see them, debate them and ensure they are followed. We need to establish clearly the limits we will set in the steps taken by government and others in securing the peace and prosperity of our society. The limits to which our rights may be eroded should be writ large for all to see and understand. The fact that no other jurisdiction in Australia has a bill of rights is no reason for us not to have one here. Others may be unwilling, but we should at least be prepared to debate the issues.

The notion of a bill of rights is not new to the ACT. The last Labor government, under the direction of the then Attorney-General, Terry Connolly, began the process of developing a bill of rights. During the debate that accompanied that process, a survey undertaken by the Australian National University showed that the majority of Australians believed that there were inadequate safeguards of human rights in this country. Seventy-three per cent of those surveyed believed that we should have a bill of rights.

In 1995, Mr Connolly produced an exposure draft of a bill of rights. It set out basic human rights of citizens and made them enforceable against the government. If the government or one of its agencies infringed these rights, those affected would be able to take the matter to the Supreme Court for a declaration of their rights.

The bill did not apply between citizens, but was rather directed to the actions of the Assembly, the bureaucracy and the judiciary. The intention was to establish a set of standards against which the government could be measured in such matters as, for example, the actions of the police in arresting and searching people, surveillance, the conduct of trials in court and the provision of educational facilities. Under that draft bill, the Attorney-General was required to inform the Assembly whether legislation introduced into the Assembly was inconsistent with the bill of rights and, if so, explain why it was considered necessary.

The draft bill was designed as a non-entrenched bill. The Assembly was given the power to override it or amend it if there were problems with its operation. The bill also provided that wherever an act or a subordinate law could be given a meaning consistent with the rights and freedoms set out in the bill of rights, that meaning was to be preferred to a meaning inconsistent with those rights and freedoms. The 1995 draft bill would not have overridden other laws made by the Assembly or have rendered them invalid, but would have been used to interpret them.

I would like to acknowledge Mr Connolly's valuable contribution to the bill of rights debate. It is not the intention of this government to go over ground covered by Mr Connolly. Rather, this government will continue the process he began.

To progress the bill of rights debate I will, as announced, set up a committee, to be chaired by Professor Hilary Charlesworth, an acknowledged authority on human rights and international law at the ANU. The committee will, in consultation with the ACT community, make recommendations to the government about an appropriate bill of rights for the territory. Its aim will be to effectively reinforce and ensure the rights we all take for granted, but which are not guaranteed under the law as it now stands.

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