Page 726 - Week 02 - Thursday, 10 March 2011
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
legislation to ensure that human rights issues are considered at every stage of the decision-making and policy development processes.
In particular, recommendation 5 of the report highlights the urgent need to update the guidelines for ACT departments developing legislation and policy. I hope the government can give the Assembly an assurance that this process is underway and that we can expect revised guidelines in the very near future.
In addition to this, the report makes the recommendation that funding be increased for the human rights unit to allow it to expand its educational capacity and undertake the necessary education for all government agencies and executive officers. The Greens support this recommendation and would like to express the view that greater awareness and improved understanding and dialogue about human rights is an essential part of the development of an effective human rights framework and ultimately the delivery of outcomes that respect human rights.
The report also recommends greater training for judicial officers and legal practitioners to encourage greater awareness of the application of the Human Rights Act. At the time of the report there had been 91 cases which considered the Human Rights Act. The report notes that often this consideration was limited and “very superficial”. Of course, since the report was completed we have had the first declaration of incompatibility and are currently awaiting the government’s response to the decision.
As well as that particularly significant case, there have been over 100 cases across the Supreme Court, the Magistrates Court and ACAT that have considered the Human Rights Act. Again, while these were often superficial mentions of the act, particularly in the early days of the act’s operation, increasingly the courts are engaging in a more and more meaningful way with the act. The dialogue model is working and proving to be a very valuable way of promoting human rights and improving our practices. In light of the 2008 amendments and the expanded role of the Human Rights Act in administrative decision making, it is also a very positive development that ACAT has been increasingly willing to consider and engage with the practical application of the Human Rights Act to the administrative decision-making process.
On this point, I would like to highlight the case of Watson v ACT Planning and Land Authority, where Presidential Member Professor Peta Spender made a specific recommendation that ACTPLA renotify the development in question to ensure consistency with the Human Rights Act. Ms Le Couteur asked questions of both the planning minister and the Attorney-General to find out what the government was doing about this and received a disappointing response. Ultimately, the government, after having voted down a Greens initiative, did address the issue and legislate to address the issue.
In the context of tribunals it should also be noted that the report recommends that tribunals come under the public authorities definition, so they themselves are captured by the Human Rights Act.
One further issue of particular concern to the Greens is the consistent absence of detailed statements of reasons for certificates of Human Rights Act compatibility that
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video