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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2002 Week 4 Hansard (9 April) . . Page.. 839 ..

MR STANHOPE (continuing):

One aspect is what form the bill should take-assuming we get over the initial hurdle Mr Stefaniak talked about that it is appropriate and desirable-with special reference to whether it would be entrenched; and, if so, by what method, whether it would be an ordinary statute or whether it would be just a declaration of the Assembly.

Much of what Mr Carr says, which was quoted with approval by Mr Stefaniak and I have heard being quoted with approval by other members of the Liberal Party, goes to a particular model. Effectively, all of the comments Mr Carr make go to the US model of an entrenched constitution. Much of what he says in that article is coloured by the open assumption that we are talking about an entrenched model, whereas the first point in the terms of reference asks: should it be entrenched and, if so, how?

Perhaps it should not be entrenched; perhaps it should be an ordinary statute that is repealable at any time. Perhaps it should not even be a statute; it might just be a declaration. These are the things the committee will look at. I am disappointed, but perhaps not surprised, that the Liberal Party have drawn the line in the sand so unequivocally and are ignoring the terms of reference.

One of the terms of reference is whether or not the bill or charter of rights might be a declaration and not even become legislation. A model that would be appropriate at this point could simply be a declaration. This is what the committee is looking at, yet the comments we have received in this short debate go to the suggestion that this is effectively the end of the world as we know it. Included within the terms of reference is a possibility that it not even be legislated. It goes on:

  1. What effect the Bill would have on the exercise of executive and judicial powers
    2. , including:

  1. the circumstances, if any, in which a Bill of Rights should be binding on individuals as distinct from the Legislative, Executive and Judicial arms of Government and persons or bodies performing a public function or exercising a public power under legislation;

  2. how an ACT Bill of Rights would operate in relation to Commonwealth law;

  3. the extent and manner in which the rights declared in a Bill of Rights should be enforceable;

  4. what, if any, limits the Bill of Rights should be subject to;

  5. whether the ACT Legislative Assembly should be able to override particular rights set out in a Bill of Rights and, if so, in what circumstances and in accordance with what procedures;

  6. whether there should be a legislative requirement on courts to construe legislation in a manner that is compatible with international human rights instruments.

These are the issues that need to be discussed, fleshed out and talked about. It continues:

3. What rights should be protected by the Bill, with special reference to:

a) whether the rights declared in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights should be incorporated into domestic law by such a Bill of Rights-

this is a debate that has been going on forever-

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