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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2003 Week 12 Hansard (18 November) . . Page.. 4247 ..

MR STANHOPE (continuing):

those values that bind us together as a democratic, multicultural and rights-respecting people. By passing this bill we commit ourselves to minimum standards in our law making. It is a bottom line, a floor below which we should not fall.

Some are nervous about the impact of this law. Let me say this: rights exist in a social context that is well recognised in international human rights law, but it is too frequently lost in debate which exaggerates the scope and impact of rights. Some human rights are absolute. The right not to be tortured is one such right. I am sure no-one in this Assembly would disagree with that proposition. But the covenant does not permit the use of human rights as a pretext to violate the rights of others. We have taken care to reflect this principle in our bill and to ensure that restrictions on rights do not go further than is necessary.

I am aware that some will say that this bill does not go far enough. There are many who want to see economic, social and cultural rights enshrined in law, but I have to say to you, "Let us at least begin."Let us begin with what is well accepted in the rest of the common law world. The world has moved on from the Magna Carta. Let us begin by incorporating the work done 60 years ago at the formation of the United Nations. This bill may not be exhaustive of all rights, but it is a beginning. I have already announced that economic, social and cultural rights will form part of the social plan. This issue can be looked at as part of a review of the Human Rights Act in the future.

Mr Speaker, I now turn to some of the major features of the bill. The first is individual civil and political rights. First, this bill will recognise in legislation fundamental rights and freedoms drawn from the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Consequently, rights such as equality before the law, the protection of family life and children, personal freedoms such as freedom of religion, thought conscience and expression, the right not to be arbitrarily detained, the right to a fair trial and so forth, will be interpreted and applied in the ACT context.

To achieve that goal the bill requires that all ACT statutes and statutory instruments must be interpreted and applied so far as possible in a way that is consistent with the human rights protected in the act. Unless the law is intended to operate in a way that is inconsistent with the right in question, the interpretation that is most consistent with human rights must prevail. Decision makers in all government areas will have to incorporate consideration of human rights into their decision-making process, and a statutory discretion must be exercised consistently with human rights unless legislation clearly authorises an administrative action regardless of the human right.

As I have already said, some rights, such as the right not to be tortured, are absolute. Other rights must be balanced against the rights of others. Limitations on a fundamental right must be read as narrowly as possible. By drawing on the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, we are able to ensure that the principles in the bill are interpreted in a way that is coherent with established human rights law.

In practice, decision makers and others authorised to act by a territory statue in the courts and tribunals must take account of human rights when interpreting the law. If an issue concerning the interpretation of human rights arises, that issue can be raised in the context of criminal or civil proceedings. In practice, the opportunity to raise the issue will only arise where there is already provision for a proceedings in a court or tribunal.

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