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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 09 Hansard (Thursday, 19 August 2004) . . Page.. 3969 ..

I point the Assembly to some provisions in the Human Rights Act. There is one section directly relevant to the point here and about three subsections which are also perhaps relevant. I do not think we can ignore this fact when we are considering this particular point dealing with a citizen, even though some of the rules of this Assembly are somewhat different from the rules of a court.

Section 8 (2) states:

Everyone has the right to enjoy his or her human rights without distinction or discrimination of any kind.

This is a more general point. It could well be argued here that this report indeed discriminates unfairly against Mr Burke. Specifically, section 12 (b) is absolutely directly to the point. It provides that everyone has the right not to have his or her reputation unlawfully attacked. That is one of the main issues here and I think that that really backs up Mrs Dunne’s amendment and is a relevant point.

I will also point to two other sections that may well be relevant here. Section 17 (a) provides that every citizen has the right, and is to have the opportunity, to take part in the conduct of public affairs, directly or through freely chosen representatives. In a roundabout sort of way, I think that that reinforces the right of this individual to appear before the committee and give evidence or whatever. Finally, section 21 (1) which, admittedly, relates to court procedures, states the right of a person to an impartial court—

Mrs Dunne: We are a parliament.

MR STEFANIAK: We are a parliament. It says:

Everyone has the right to have criminal charges—

that is not the case here—

and rights and obligations recognised by law—

I would certainly say that that would be the case—

decided by a competent, independent and impartial court or tribunal after a fair and public hearing.

Obviously, we are not a court, but we are not dissimilar. People have said in this place that we are, in fact, the highest court. We make laws that are interpreted by courts and there is a real correlation there. I think the government’s Human Rights Act would support what Mrs Dunne is seeking to do with her amendment.

Mrs Dunne: To give somebody a fair hearing, yes.

MR STEFANIAK: To give this man a fair hearing. All it asks us to do is to reconsider his application, commence negotiations and, as paragraph (3) indicates, consider a submission and confer with the person or corporation and any member who referred in

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