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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 02 Hansard (Tuesday, 2 March 2004) . . Page.. 534 ..

MS DUNDAS: Yes, they are to different clauses, Mr Speaker, and they insert different sections, but they are consequential.

MR SPEAKER: Right.

MS DUNDAS: I will present my case now and see how we go. The amendments that I present now do three things. They incorporate the human rights contained in the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights; they require the Supreme Court to notify the Commissioner for Human Rights if it intends to issue a declaration of incompatibility; and, to speak to my first three amendments specifically, these clauses incorporate rights from the Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights.

When the government adopted the report of the bill of rights committee it only adopted some of the recommendations of that committee. It chose to exclude rights contained in the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights, which leaves the bill with an incomplete and ultimately almost ineffective subset of rights.

The government response to the consultative committee report was to accept the view that all categories of human rights are universal, independent, interrelated and indivisible. The amendments that I put forward are consistent with that view. If these amendments were supported, the right to life would be supported by the right to good health and freedom from hunger, and the right to take part in public life would be supported by the right to education.

The Vienna Declaration on Human Rights states:

All human rights are universal, indivisible and interdependent and interrelated. The international community must treat human rights globally in a fair and equal manner, on the same footing, and with the same emphasis. While the significance of national and regional particularities and various historical, cultural and religious backgrounds must be borne in mind, it is the duty of States, regardless of their political, economic and cultural systems, to promote and protect all human rights and fundamental freedoms.

It is disappointing that this declaration has been ignored in the development of this Human Rights Bill. The move by the government to water down the protection of human rights in the ACT is unfortunate. It appears that we have a government that is willing to split human rights into two categories: one that is to be protected in this bill and one that is not. We have in some sense divided human rights. The amendments that I move tonight bring those human rights back to the same level.

I commend the government for the extensive work it has done in the preparation of this bill, but we cannot remove the essential recognition of some human rights in the ACT for political or economic convenience. True recognition of human rights does not place them as subordinate to government finances or split them into those that are compulsory and those that are optional. I hope the government has reconsidered its position on these amendments. I am happy to support them being included today so that we do not end up with what some will perceive as a watered-down human rights act.

It is important that we include the civil and political rights as laid down by the international covenant, which talks about the right to freedom from hunger, the right to

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