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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2003 Week 13 Hansard (25 November) . . Page.. 4576 ..

MR STEFANIAK (continuing):

with the rights protected by the Human Rights Act. As a result, an independent review of an administrative decision-for example by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal-could overturn a decision on the ground that it wasn't compatible with the Human Rights Act. Courts will also be required to interpret laws relating to trials and other proceedings in a way that is consistent, as far as possible, with the Human Rights Act.

This will have a far-reaching effect within the ACT community, as decision makers in all government areas will incorporate consideration of human rights into their decision-making process. In this way, the rights protected by the Human Rights Act will be routinely considered and will be integrated into every day life. There is nothing much here about responsibilities. In the committee report and in the government response, that is an overriding thing. It is in the preamble, but there is nothing like what is suggested to be in the Human Rights Act in relation to responsibilities. Too right this is going to have a far-reaching effect within the ACT community. It is an effect that terrifies a number of people in our community who have thought about this issue.

People in our community are probably now just starting to think about this issue. For the first time, after about two years, I am being approached by people who are very scared about how this bill that we will be debating later, and which flows as a result of this government response and the committee report, is going to affect them-and affect them very much in an adverse way. The government response shows a naivety. In a subtle sort of way, which is probably beyond the government to appreciate, it backs up all the fears opponents of the bill of rights in Australia have spoken about.

Bob Carr makes a number of very, very good points that are borne out by this government's response-points such as bills of rights invariably take away someone's rights; affect one group adversely and maybe one group positively. That often turns communities into legal battlefields. Obviously whichever way we look at the government's response there is going to be a big increase in the time taken in court, the way courts deal with rights and the ability of decisions administratively to be overturned. As a result, there is the potential for problems, with the additional layers of bureaucracy that will be needed, and problems in giving to courts the role that is properly the role of elected parliaments, which can be tossed out at any election-something that cannot be done with a court. All of those things, which Bob Carr and other opponents have mentioned, will come home to roost as a result of what the government is proposing here. This is borne out by the government's rather naive response to the committee's recommendations.

The government does vary from the committee in one aspect, and I say thank God for that. It would be an unmitigated economic disaster if economic, social and cultural rights were actually enacted now. It does concede that is more of a challenge than civil and political rights and goes on to say why. It also indicates that it will look at these rights. They will initially be protected and incorporated into the social plan and we will see what happens as a result of that. More recently, the Chief Minister said that he is still looking at that, and it might well be something we do down the track. Well, we would certainly do that down the track to our peril.

Those rights, Mr Speaker, are the right to an adequate standard of living including adequate food, clothing and housing. That may not be so much of a problem, but here is one I think would be a big problem for any government-the right to the highest

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