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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 02 Hansard (Tuesday, 2 March 2004) . . Page.. 537 ..

the common law as a bulwark against threats to our human rights, which the Liberal Party is so wedded to. Not even the United Kingdom—the generator of the common law, the home of the common law, the nation that gave birth to the common law—accepts any longer that the common law is an adequate protector of the human rights of its citizens.

It is an interesting extension to make that the United Kingdom, which is still home to colleagues on the opposition bench, no longer accepts that the common law of itself is adequate. It has legislated, through its adoption of the European convention, a bill of rights of its own through its Human Rights Act, which acknowledges a right in relation to education. This right is negatively expressed but is nevertheless incorporated within the United Kingdom Human Rights Act. I think it is the right not to be refused access to education, and it is one of the rights Ms Dundas would seek to introduce, in a more positive formulation, through these amendments.

We need to be mindful, if we are serious about this debate, of the United Kingdom introducing into their bill of rights that one social right: the right not to be refused access to education. It is not true, as Mr Stefaniak would lead us to believe, that nations we choose to compare ourselves to have not begun to incorporate into their domestic law a range of social rights: in the case of the United Kingdom, a right to education; and in the case of South Africa, the full range of economic, social and cultural rights.

In relation to what Ms Dundas and, I know, Ms Tucker are seeking to achieve in this significant piece of legislation by expanding it in this way, the government will not support the incorporation of that convention into the Human Rights Act at this time. But I have a very open mind on the question, and I look forward very much to continuing to work with Ms Tucker and Ms Dundas to achieve, over time, the incorporation of a fuller range of rights into the Human Rights Act.

MS DUNDAS (8.37): I take some heart from the Chief Minister and Attorney-General’s comments that the inclusion of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights is something he is not willing to see in the legislation “at this time” because that indicates it is something he is willing to look at in the future. However, considering the amount of time we have had to consider a bill of rights, or a Human Rights Act, for the ACT, it is disappointing that the main impediment to including these rights at this stage is economic costing. The time would have been available to work through that, and tonight we could have seen the ACT accept a much fuller and more even-handed piece of human rights legislation.

Amendment negatived.

Clause 5 agreed to.

Clause 6 agreed to.

Clause 7.

MR STEFANIAK (8.38): Whilst it is obvious that the opposition will oppose the whole bill, this particular clause indicates that the act is “not exhaustive of the rights an individual may have under domestic or international law”. It gives examples of other rights—for example, rights under the Discrimination Act 1991, or another territory law.

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