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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 02 Hansard (Tuesday, 2 March 2004) . . Page.. 529 ..

Mr Speaker having declared that the motion had not been carried as an absolute majority of members had not voted in its favour, as required by standing order 272—

Question so resolved in the negative.

Sitting suspended from 6.31 to 8.00 pm.

MR STANHOPE (Chief Minister, Attorney-General, Minister for Environment and Minister for Community Affairs) (8.02), in reply: Mr Speaker, today the Assembly will pass the very first bill of rights legislation in Australia and fulfil the government’s election promise to strengthen the legal protection of the rights of everyone in the ACT. It is the product of over two years of consultations in the community and represents the first stage of a legislative scheme that will give effect to fundamental civil and political rights in ACT law.

When I committed the government to this project, we knew it would be controversial and attract passionate debate in the community and from all sides of politics. It is a subject on which emotions run high, and people have made some quite extreme claims in this debate. On the one hand, proponents of a constitutionally entrenched bill of rights would like our Supreme Court to have the power to strike down legislation. On the other hand, there are those who, despite all the evidence, still believe that the common law is the best way to protect fundamental rights.

Some have played on stereotypes of a crime-ridden and litigious American culture or argued that the bill is at the expense of the community rather than in support of it. These claims are baseless and ill informed, and this polarised debate has kept Australia lagging behind the rest of the world. As all members know, we are the only common law country whose citizens do not enjoy a constitutional or statutory bill of rights.

The Canadians are proud of their Charter of Rights and Freedoms. In Europe 41 countries are party to the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, covering some 800 million people. New Zealand has a bill of rights; it has had a bill of rights for over 10 years. The United Kingdom, the homeland of the common law, incorporated the European convention—a bill of rights—in 1998. 151 countries are party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The principles of the covenant are reflected in most national constitutions, but in Australia it serves only as a guide for the work of the federal Human Rights Commissioner, whose jurisdiction is limited to inquiring into the acts and practices under Commonwealth enactments.

Why is Australia lagging so far behind? Human rights protection is not just a federal matter, and there is no inherent logic that a national approach is the only approach. Human rights protection is as much a state and territory responsibility as it is a matter for the federal government, and we in the ACT are happy to lead the way for Australia on this issue. It is time to move on.

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