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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 02 Hansard (Tuesday, 2 March 2004) . . Page.. 526 ..

committee said, thought that the administration of laws by government agencies was partial, inconsistent and unfair.

This is a very important observation. Unless we feel confident that ACT public servants act according to the law, there can be no real human rights protection in the ACT. The Human Rights Bill does nothing at all to achieve this. Perhaps human rights in the ACT might be better protected if the Ombudsman, and other like bodies, were strengthened or perhaps if ministerial responsibility was taken seriously.

It is very interesting that Mr Spry’s article says:

We must be very clear about this—the Human Rights Act would not permit the ACT Supreme Court to declare a law that infringes human rights invalid or unenforceable.

So why would you have it? Why would you have the reference to the Supreme Court? It goes on to say:

But the bill makes it very clear that such a declaration of incompatibility does not in any way affect the validity or operation of the law in question. Even though a law of the Assembly is inconsistent with human rights, it remains a valid, enforceable law.

That is good law, Attorney-General; that makes sense! Let’s pass a law that says that you can have incompatible laws! The article goes on to say:

It would also seem—although the Bill is not exactly clear on this—

perhaps the Attorney-General can clear this up—

that the Supreme Court will not be able to award compensation to a person whose human rights have been infringed.

I guess you are happy in the knowledge that they have been infringed, there will be no action, the law will not be invalidated and life will continue because we have passed a bill of rights law that is a toothless tiger. (Further extension of time granted.) Indeed, Mr Spry went on to say in the last paragraph of the article:

In short, the Human Rights Bill is to human-rights protection in the ACT what Ern Malley is to Australian literature—a hoax.

Mr Speaker, I want to speak about dissent. It is interesting to note that the bill protects free speech, but what does it say about the right to dissent? You have to ask about what has happened to those who have dared to show their dissent against this government? Let me give a couple of examples.

What happened when the AMA had the temerity to press for concessions on medical indemnity? They were abused by our leader, the Attorney-General. We had a horrible tirade against doctors with Rolls-Royces parked in their driveways. To the best of my knowledge, we proved that one, possibly two, of the doctors had Rolls-Royces. But if you stand up to the Chief Minister you get a barrage of abuse.

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