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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 06 Hansard (Wednesday, 23 June 2004) . . Page.. 2459 ..

the day after its notification, if the Assembly passes it. In Part 2 it deals with civil responsibilities. They are referred to in Schedule 1. Individuals have civil responsibilities, just as individuals have civil rights and human rights attached to them. Just as in the human rights act in section 6, it states:

This Act is not exhaustive of the rights an individual may have under domestic or international law.

I think that would be impossible. It is a task that has been regarded as impossible by the government and its legal advisers, in bringing down its human rights legislation. There is an example given of other responsibilities—responsibilities under international covenants—in that part. Part 3 deals with the application of civil responsibility to our territory laws. Just like the human rights act, clause 7 states that it applies to all our laws. In terms of interpreting laws and civil responsibilities, clause 8 (1) states:

In working out the meaning of a Territory law, an interpretation that is consistent with civil responsibilities is to be preferred to any other interpretation.

It goes on to say:

Subsection (1) is subject to the Legislation Act, section 139.

There is a note that explains that. Importantly, subsection (3) states that, “If applying subsection (1) and the human rights act 2004, section 30 (1) to a territory law would achieve…” If that had achieved a different result, only subsection (1) is to be applied. In other words, if there is an inconsistency or any conflict between the human rights act and this particular act, subsection 8 (1) will apply. That is that the bill on civil responsibilities is to be preferred if there is any conflict with the human rights act.

I think that is important. People have rights and responsibilities. As human beings we all have a responsibility to the society we live in. If we were concerned only about our individual rights and not the rights of society and the rights of others, it would be a pretty poor society we live in. I think society would go to pieces pretty quickly if we just did that. Indeed, societies that were utterly selfish and just looked after people’s individual rights, and not collective rights and responsibilities, really did not last very long.

When those things happen, societies crumble—one only has to look at history to see that. People have to be responsible for their own actions; they have responsibilities to their fellow human beings; and I think it is only right and proper that, if there is a clash between people’s rights and responsibilities, the responsibilities and interests towards a just, decent and functioning society should win out. Hopefully we will not see that terribly often.

Subsection (4) is “working out the meaning of a territory law”. Again this pretty well replicates what is in the human rights act, as indeed does interpretation of “civil responsibility”. Again we look at international law and the judgments of foreign international courts and tribunals. Anything relevant there to a civil responsibility might be considered in interpreting that responsibility—again provisions very similar to the human rights act. Similarly, part 4 deals with a review of the act. As the Attorney-General is going to review the operations of the human rights act, similarly there will be a review of this act. Again, there is an expiry date for that. There are some

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