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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 02 Hansard (Tuesday, 2 March 2004) . . Page.. 584 ..

law consistent with human rights. For those reasons the government will not support the amendment.

Amendment negatived.

Clause 42 agreed to.

Proposed new clause 42A.

MS TUCKER (11.50): I move amendment No 6 circulated in my name which seeks to insert a new clause 42A [see schedule 5 at page 605]. I spoke to this at the in principle stage, but for members’ information this amendment is calling for a review of the act after the first year of operation and asking that the Attorney-General review the first year of operation of this act and present a report of the review to the Legislative Assembly not later than 1 July 2006. The review must include consideration of:

(a) whether, taking into consideration the 1st year of operation of this Act, rights under the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights should be included in this Act as human rights; and

(b) whether environment-related human rights would be better protected if there were statutory oversight of their operation by someone with expertise in environment protection.

The next paragraph states that this section expires on 1 January 2007. I think that is self-explanatory.

MR STEFANIAK (11.51): The amendment is going to get through because I understand Mr Stanhope is going to support it, but I reiterate comments made by me and by the rest of the opposition in relation to economic, social and cultural rights. The demise of the territory would be brought on that much sooner if this is going to be reviewed within the year and we are going to go down that path. I do, however, also just caution members that a year to review anything is probably not a very long period of time. The UK act took two years before it commenced, and I think it took about 18 months before a few problems emerged there and became apparent. I wonder, Ms Tucker, even though you are going to get support for this, whether a year is time enough to review this. I am somewhat scared by the fact that within about 18 months or two years we might end up with economic rights such as the right to absolutely brilliant health care or things like that which we simply cannot afford. Roll on brave new world.

MS DUNDAS (11.53): I will be supporting this amendment. I think it is important that we review the Human Rights Act after its first year of operation. We are doing something quite groundbreaking here tonight and it is important that we monitor that. There have been a number of points raised through the long debate this evening, not only by the opposition but by the crossbenches, about further issues people would like explored. Whilst this amendment specifies some of those, I would also like to see included in that review some consideration given to a complaints mechanism. I do not know whether the Supreme Court is the best way to go or whether the human rights commissioner feels that there is such a community call for it that we need to look at a broader community complaints mechanism. I am glad to see that we will be reviewing

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