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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 09 Hansard (Wednesday, 18 August 2004) . . Page.. 3878 ..

The issue of whether the Human Rights Act should be accompanied by a charter of responsibilities was dealt with at some length in the report of the consultative committee on the Human Rights Act. They particularly quoted, for example, Uniting Care NSW/ACT, who said:

There are serious dangers in including detailed responsibilities for individuals in a Bill of Rights. First, responsibilities are already detailed in the plethora of legislation … from paying taxes or sending children to school. … Second, a list of individual responsibilities would shift the agenda of a Bill of Rights from protecting citizens and may give the impression that government responsibility for the human rights of their citizens is conditional rather than absolute. … Third, the sorts of human rights that might be included in a Bill of Rights is clear, but there is no equivalent statement of responsibilities.

I think that is an ongoing problem with the bill before us today. This bill is not based on any international treaties, and there is no international law on which to guide their interpretation. This bill states that the courts must interpret laws to be consistent with the charter, yet there is no body of law by which the court can do so. Equally, Mr Stefaniak has stated that the bill was partially based on a draft declaration that has not even been accepted by the United Nations. It also clearly contains a certain number of individual flourishes.

Basically, the way I see it is that this bill is one man’s perception of what responsibilities should be. There has been virtually no consultation in preparing this bill, let alone any attempt at trying to reach a community consensus on which responsibilities should be included. This stands in stark contrast to the Human Rights Act that was exhaustively consulted amongst the community, as Mr Stefaniak is very much aware.

I would now like to address some of the provisions in the bill that I find particularly concerning. It is extremely difficult to pick on particular cases because there are important problems with practically every clause of the bill. But I will focus on a few. Clause 1(2) says that everyone should respect people who hold a position of authority. I think we need to be careful about trying to legislate for respect. For example, in the last year we have all been shocked to see the revelations about child abuse and the child protection system in the territory. Most child abuse is perpetrated by people who hold a position of authority over the child. Should that child be told that they must respect people in this position, that they must follow every dictate that is given to them by somebody who is abusing their position of power?

I have a similar problem with subclause (5), which says that people must act towards one another in a spirit of goodwill, unity and kindred spirit. This is obviously an aspirational motherhood statement. I do not know how Mr Stefaniak would go about enforcing such a provision. He himself has commented many times about the support needed for victims of crime. Does Mr Stefaniak think that victims of crime should treat the perpetrators as kindred spirits? This is unclear and is one of the ongoing questions that I have about this piece of legislation.

Subclause (6) talks about the responsibilities of teachers and states they must maintain a politically neutral position in all aspects of their professional behaviour. Quite apart from its being incredibly unclear about what exactly a “politically neutral position”

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