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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 02 Hansard (Tuesday, 2 March 2004) . . Page.. 580 ..

optional, then we would be ending up with legislation that could be quite readily ignored, which will undo all the work that we are doing tonight. I support the removal of this clause, as I would see it making the government of the day more vigilant in ensuring that new laws are properly assessed for their impact on human rights, which is what we are trying to achieve this evening.

Clause 39 agreed to.

Clause 40 agreed to.

Clause 41.

MS TUCKER (11.37): I seek leave to move amendments 4 and 5 circulated in my name together.

Leave granted.

MS TUCKER: I move amendments 4 and 5 circulated in my name together [see schedule 5 at page 605]. This amendment is consequential on my next amendment, which would extend the feedback loop from the Human Rights Commissioner via the Attorney-General to the Assembly. So I will speak to my next amendment at this time as well.

The Human Rights Commissioner’s functions include to review the effect of territory laws, including the common law on human rights, and to report to the Attorney-General on the results of the review. This is a broad responsibility. There are no particular requirements for regular reports and so it is largely up to the commissioner. The commissioner in identifying any problems, or indeed lack of problems, is finding information that is useful, indeed essential, for the Assembly as a whole, if it is taking its human rights obligations seriously.

This part of my amendment amends the clause relating to the reports, so that reports on reviews are in writing. This is preparatory to the next amendment, which is to insert an obligation on the Attorney-General to table such reports in the Assembly within six sitting days of receiving the report. I think without the first amendment making the reports in writing, my second amendment would still make sense, but it does create a paper trail which is useful for accountability. I am talking here about accountability of the responsible minister as to their response to reviews alerting them to problems. Of course, there is nothing stopping the independent Human Rights Commissioner from passing on reports directly to members or publicising their reports. However, it seems very useful to echo the tabling requirements when the Supreme Court makes a declaration and to require the Attorney-General to let the Assembly as a whole know whenever the commissioner has found it necessary to report on human rights aspects of human rights law.

My amendment includes a caveat which allows the Attorney-General to delete any parts of the report which would breach privacy in individuals involved in a case that would otherwise be against the public interest to make public. This is a little similar to the process of dealing with exceptions in FOI reports. If the Attorney-General does make such deletions or alterations, he or she must make a statement to that effect on tabling the report. I hope I will get support for this amendment. It is a small step in a way, but it

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