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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2002 Week 4 Hansard (9 April) . . Page.. 834 ..

MR STEFANIAK (continuing):

liberty or property without due process of law have been used to invalidate laws limiting working hours, fixing minimum wages and standardising food quality.

In New Zealand, despite political assurances to the contrary when the Bill of Rights was enacted, the courts have created new remedies to apply to breaches of the Bill of Rights. For example, the NZ Court of Appeal has held that the right to freedom of speech includes a power for the court to order the publication of a correction of defamatory material.

Even the Parliament found, to its surprise, that it was subject to the Bill of Rights and had to apply natural justice, particularly in parliamentary committee hearings.

A bill of rights will further engender a litigation culture. Already it seems that people are unable to accept responsibility for their own actions. A person who trips and falls today does not blame himself or herself for carelessness but looks for someone to sue.

The law reports of Canada and NZ show the extensive use of their bills of rights in litigation, and that the primary use of a bill of rights is in relation to criminal appeals.

In NZ, in the first seven years after the Bill of Rights Act was enacted, it was invoked by the accused in thousands of criminal cases.

The Bill of Rights continues to be routinely used as grounds for trying to overturn the admissibility of evidence, including confessions, evidence obtained under search warrants and breath-testing of drink-drivers.

In a recent Australian case, a prisoner brought a legal action on the basis that his rights were being abused because there was not enough variety in the vegetarian meals offered at a prison. He relied on the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, often described as the International Bill of Rights. His claim was rejected because the covenant is not enforceable at Australian law.

When the courts are swamped with thousands of bill-of-rights cases, where will the ordinary person go for justice? The courts will be made even more inaccessible and the cost of running the court system will increase.

The main beneficiaries of a bill of rights are the lawyers who profit from the fees and the criminals who escape imprisonment on the grounds of a technicality. The main losers are the taxpayers.

Parliaments are elected to make laws. In doing so, they make judgments about how the rights and interests of the public should be balanced. Views will differ in any given case about whether the judgment is correct. If it is unacceptable, the community can make its views known at elections.

A bill of rights is an admission of the failure of parliaments, governments and the people to behave reasonably, responsibly and respectfully.

Strong words from a very experienced Labor Premier. Again, we have never had a bill of rights enacted in Australia. Agree or not with Bob Carr, I think he lays out a number of potential problems with a bill of rights. At this stage in what will be a lengthy debate over the next year, I stress that we have in Australia-while not by any means a perfect

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