Page 4031 - Week 13 - Thursday, 6 December 2007
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
I turn now to the issue of extending the notice requirement. The notice provisions are being amended to require notice to be given to the Attorney-General and the human rights commission of any proceedings in the Supreme Court in which a matter arising under the act or involving its interpretation is to be argued, in a form similar to the notice requirement for constitutional arguments in the commonwealth Judiciary Act. This will ensure that the Attorney-General and the commission are in a position to intervene in appropriate cases to ensure that relevant legal arguments and authority are presented to the court.
These amendments will improve the operation of our Human Rights Act, strengthening its provisions and improving their accessibility. It will retain the position of the ACT at the cutting edge of human rights.
For two years, we were pioneers in the quest to bring rights home in Australia. For a time, we were the only jurisdiction to implement the rights and freedoms recognised in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Now we are on the inside, looking out at a wider debate on the introduction of bills of rights in other states and, potentially, the commonwealth.
Since the passage of our bill, Victoria has passed its charter of rights and responsibilities. Western Australia has developed a draft human rights bill. A foundation report has been released by the Tasmanian Law Reform Institute, and a new bill of rights project has been launched by the New South Wales charter group. There has also been progress towards a national bill of rights, supported by this government and by many of our federal and state colleagues. Federal Labor, in its election platform, has promised a public inquiry about this issue, about how best to recognise and protect the human rights and freedoms. In short, there is a growing interest in the value of rights and a rights dialogue.
A bill of rights helps us all avoid acting arbitrarily—individually and collectively. It does this by pulling us back again and again to a form of words, asking us to explain our behaviour in the reflected light of those words, to measure our intentions against the standard established by those words. With this opportunity around the corner, it is imperative that we strengthen the supporting framework for the growth of a dialogue and culture within the ACT.
As many commentators have noted, there has not yet been a flood of human rights litigation, nor has there been a drought. There have been some key cases in which human rights issues have arisen. In time, the government looks forward to the growth in the number of cases and the depth of argument on the issues. In due course, we may see the trickle of human rights case law turn into a stream. This stream will be the evidence of the growing awareness of human rights in this jurisdiction and the strength of the underlying legal principles.
To carry that illusion a little further, it will also be important to ensure we monitor the flow. In the near future, we will have an opportunity to measure and review the operation of the act and the growth of our human rights culture. Under section 44 of the Human Rights Act, I am currently required to review and report on its operation no later than 1 July 2009.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .