Page 2215 - Week 07 - Wednesday, 16 August 2006
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
find every state and territory in Australia will have adopted the ACT’s Human Rights Act. That is how out of step you were. We know that you do not like human rights much. You do not like them to be respected, you do not like civil rights and you do not like the rule of law. We know that. We know the extent through your neoconservative attitude to the world.
MR SPEAKER: Order! The Chief Minister’s time has expired.
MR CORBELL (Molonglo—Attorney-General, Minister for Police and Emergency Services and Minister for Planning) (11.17): I am grateful for the opportunity to note the committee’s report on what would appear to have been a fairly significant conference about the role of legislatures and the protection of human rights. I think that the fact that the University of Melbourne chose to convene this conference and the fact that it attracted such a wide range of very prominent speakers, noted academics, people involved in public policy and people involved in politics, shows that the human rights debate is one which is continuing to emerge and strengthen in Australia.
It was very useful, I think, that most of the members of the Assembly’s scrutiny of bills committee took the opportunity to participate in this conference. I was disappointed to note that the chair of the committee, Mr Stefaniak, did not attend, although perhaps we should not be surprised by that. Maybe he was unable to attend for other reasons, which is fine, as we are all busy people. But it is, I think, telling that the Labor Party enabled a representative to attend and the Greens attended, through Dr Foskey, but the Liberal Party was notable for its absence. That highlights the ongoing failure of the Liberal Party to engage in the debate about human rights.
The human rights agenda at which the ACT has been at the forefront has now started to trickle through to other parts of the country. As my colleague Mr Stanhope highlighted, the Victorian parliament has now enacted a bill of rights and the Western Australian and Tasmanian governments are actively considering a similar piece of legislation. What are the reasons for that? In looking at the report itself and the issues that are canvassed in the report, we can see some very familiar themes. For example, we can see the theme that parliament does have a role in advancing and protecting human rights; that it is not just the preserve of lawyers and the judiciary, but that there is a significant role for politicians, parliaments and the public service. The committee, in its report, notes that it is appropriate and legitimate for parliament to ask an executive how acts comply with treaty obligations.
Mr Speaker, you would not think that if you relied solely on the discourse that we hear from members of the opposition. As to requirements to have regard to Australia’s international treaty obligations when it comes to laws that we enact in relation to, for example, preventing terrorist acts, providing for emergency medical treatment or, indeed, the rights and protections of minors, you would think that from the opposition’s perspective none of these things was relevant. Ii is highlighted by this report of the committee that it is entirely appropriate and legitimate for parliament to ask an executive how acts comply with treaty obligations. This is, for me, welcome endorsement of the fact that the approach adopted by this government in this place is in accord with a broader range of thinking about the importance of maintaining and protecting human rights through the legislature and the interplay between the legislature and the executive.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .