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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 02 Hansard (Tuesday, 2 March 2004) . . Page.. 447 ..

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.

It is interesting that the New Zealand bill of rights, as is Mr Stanhope’s, is not an entrenched bill of rights. Carr continues:

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 bills-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.

Carr concludes:

Parliaments are elected to make laws. In doing so, they make judgements about how the rights and interests of the public should be balanced. Views will differ in any given case about whether the judgement 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.

I have quoted from an article written by Bob Carr in which he enhances some of the comments he made about a bill of rights in his book Thoughtlines.

Mr Speaker, New South Wales looked at this issue not all that long ago. In October 2001 the New South Wales Standing Committee on Law and Justice brought down report 17 on the New South Wales bill of rights. One of the committee members dissented from the committee’s report. The committee made some pretty indicative comments and I will quote some of them. In chapter 7, which outlines the committee’s view, the reports sets out one of the big concerns the committee. The report states:

The independence of the Judiciary and the supremacy of Parliament are the foundations of the current system; the Committee is particularly concerned at the change over time that a Bill would make to these respective roles. The Committee believes a Bill of Rights could undermine the legitimacy of both institutions.

At the bottom of page xiii the report states:

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