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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 02 Hansard (Tuesday, 2 March 2004) . . Page.. 452 ..

before. Carr goes into what happened in New Zealand and Canada and some of the decisions that have probably cost the community money and, when all is said and done, have not really done anything to enhance and advance rights. We have an excellent system. It continues to mature and adjust to changing times, as it has done for decades, and we tinker with it at our peril.

MS TUCKER (11.33): The Greens will be supporting the Human Rights Bill, although we are very disappointed by the limited scope of what we have been presented with. We have several amendments. I understand Ms Dundas is also moving an amendment to bring back social and economic rights, so I will not be moving that amendment, but obviously will be supporting Ms Dundas’ as we have the same intention with regard to that issue. There is a very broad interest in seeing human rights integrated fully into the way government and the Assembly create laws and administer the territory. I will not be supporting Mr Stefaniak’s amendments. As much as we all want to see the rights extended, to pick and choose rights from complete statements is a potentially dangerous way to proceed. Statements are crafted with balancing rights and implied responsibilities.

So why legislate protection for human rights? As much as we may like to believe that legislators will always bear in mind the basic principles that respect humanity and our responsibilities to each other when we live together in communities, it’s a sad fact that in the heat of pursuit of particular goals, these are not always protected. The committee concluded that the perception of whether human rights were adequately protected in the ACT depends on whether one belonged to, or interacted with, the groups most vulnerable to rights abuses—for example, those with a limited advocacy capacity or those marginalised by the political process. The committee undertook an extensive analysis of the legislative, constitutional and international law basis for the protection of human rights in the ACT. Consistent with its terms of reference, the committee’s analysis draws heavily on the submissions received from communities. Based on this analysis, the committee concluded that there is no comprehensive, sufficient or transparent protection of human rights within the ACT.

The main arguments put forward in favour of the Human Rights Act are that the existing legal protections for human rights do not act as broad statements conferring equal rights upon all; and the unicameral nature of the ACT government renders the ACT legislative process vulnerable to human rights concerns. It is noted that since 1989 the ACT has been run by a minority government and often the balance of power is in the hands of one or two people. An ACT bill of rights could constitute a baseline for political negotiations, or at least prompt a debate about human rights. I recall in the last Assembly with the victims of crime legislation that would certainly have been helpful with the Attorney-General as the chief law officer being prepared to support quite unacceptable amendments from the crossbench because of other goals he had at the time. Another argument in favour of the Human Rights Act is that it would be an accessible statement of community values, and would enable the community access to information on their rights and educate public authorities and others on appropriate rights respecting behaviours et cetera.

The committee, after its research, consultation, deliberative polls and informed consideration, proposed a dialogue model with some limited scope for compensation. Their model was based on the two main human rights conventions to which Australia is a party—the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and the International

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