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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 02 Hansard (Tuesday, 2 March 2004) . . Page.. 579 ..

MS TUCKER 11.32): I will be opposing this clause. I believe that it again goes too far in trying to appease critics who do not want an effect to come from this bill. Clause 39 means that if the Attorney-General fails to make a statement on human rights implications of a piece of legislation, there is no consequence for the validity of the law. This applies similarly if the Scrutiny of Bills Committee fails to make a statement. For this bill to have an effect, there must be a dialogue. If the Attorney-General at a particular time in the future does not want to be bothered with human rights, what will the consequences be?

There is always the potential for political consequences when a minister or a committee fails to meet their statutory obligations. This can take account in theory of the particulars of the situation—was it a super urgent bill and there was just no time for human rights? Did the Assembly find that acceptable? If there is no statement, how will anyone know? How would the intent of the legislation relating to human rights be clear? I don’t support this clause of no effect on validity of the law. This needs to be a serious and essential part of our law making. It needs to be taken more seriously than the scrutiny reports sadly often are in this case.

MR STANHOPE (Chief Minister, Attorney-General, Minister for Environment and Minister for Community Affairs) (11.33): The government will not support this amendment. Clause 39 clarifies that, if the Assembly passes a law without the benefit of a statement of compatibility from the minister or a report from the committee, the law will not be invalid. It does not remove the obligation; the obligation remains. This is the same principle as any other saving provision that, for example, prevents a statutory office holder from carrying out their duties because there may have been a defect in the appointment procedure.

Statements of compatibility in committee reports are matters that involve the internal workings of the Assembly. It would be a very radical step indeed to interfere with Assembly procedure in this way. It would mean that someone could challenge the validity of a law simply on the grounds that I, or my successors, could not issue a statement in time or that the committee’s report was delayed at the printer. For that reason essentially the government will not support the amendment.

There will be times when legislation must be passed urgently or that other unforeseen circumstances affect the carrying out of these functions. In the real world no-one can control every eventuality, especially where the task is highly complex and involves a number of people. If a future Attorney-General fails to fulfil his or her responsibilities to the Assembly, I am sure the Assembly will respond accordingly and appropriately. For that reason the government cannot support the proposed deletion of the clause.

MS DUNDAS (11.35): I too will be opposing the inclusion of clause 39. Even though the government has put forward some technical reasons why it believes clause 39 has to stay, I think the points have already been made that there will be some situations in the future where people will try to get out of their statutory obligations under clauses 37 and 38 by relying on clause 39.

The Human Rights Bill is limited in scope. One of the few things it does is improve the process for developing new law. If the extra scrutiny mandated by this bill appears to be

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