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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 02 Hansard (Tuesday, 2 March 2004) . . Page.. 553 ..

We are currently having quite considerable discussion about abuse of children. There the Victims of Crime Coordinator has impressed upon us the need for a right to safety and security. It is crucially important and a fundamental right that, again, has been left out of this bill when other somewhat perhaps contrary rights are in the bill in clauses 18 to 25. This quite clearly is a right that is included in other documents as indicated on pages 8 and 9 of this annual report. It is a right, and it is only right and proper that this should be incorporated into this bill if the Chief Minister and the government are fair dinkum about protecting everyone’s rights in the community, not just selective rights for some selected individuals and selected classes of persons. The right to safety and security is one of the most fundamental rights any human being can have and it is appalling to think that in this so-called wonderful Human Rights Bill that we are going to see passed tonight this fundamental right is not included. I commend the Victims of Crime Coordinator for picking this up. It is amazing it was not actually put into the consultative committee’s report. It is in fact a glaring omission, and it is something that you people can rectify tonight by voting for this amendment, which I commend to you.

MR STANHOPE (Chief Minister, Attorney-General, Minister for the Environment and Minister for Community Affairs) (9.48): The government will not be accepting this amendment. It is important that we understand what it is that we are debating and discussing here. We are discussing a proposal that a principle that is set out in the Declaration of Basic Principles of Justice for Victims of Crime and Abuse of Power be introduced into the Human Rights Bill as a right.

There is a very distinct difference between a principle and a right. One needs to then extrapolate that and to accept and acknowledge, irrespective of what is included in the Victims of Crime Coordinator’s report, that there is no customary international law in relation to the rights of victims of crime or victims of crime and abuse. Irrespective of what might be contained in that annual report, Mr Stefaniak, there is no such customary rule of international law. We are talking here about a principle. It is a principle and it has received some recognition.

Mr Stefaniak: A fundamental one.

MR STANHOPE: No. That is the difference, Mr Stefaniak: it has received some recognition as a principle. The United Nations or treaty nations have not reduced it to a treaty. The principles that have been enunciated have not been reduced to rights. The nature of the right has not been explained. There has been no extrapolation. There is no definition of the rights that we are talking about here. Essentially, what you propose—that everyone has the right to safety and security—is not backed by any international jurisprudence. There is no treaty right to safety and security. There is no international understanding, no understanding at international law, about what the right to safety and security means. It is essentially meaningless.

What does it mean? There is a full body of international law developed in relation to the rights contained in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights; these are treaty rights. In international law and national jurisprudence the precedent exists in relation to all of those rights. There is none in relation to this principle. You are proposing to introduce into the Human Rights Act a laudable notion—that everyone has the right to safety and security—but it is a principle; it is not a right that has been

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