Page 727 - Week 02 - Thursday, 10 March 2011
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
accompany government bills presented to the Assembly. Item 3.8 of the parliamentary agreement requires that detailed statements of reasons for compatibility decisions be provided to the Assembly. The report discusses this issue and recommends that detailed statements of reasons that adopt a clear section 28 framework be provided or omissions explained. This would greatly improve all members’ understanding of the operation and application of the Human Rights Act and assist in the development of future legislation.
I would like to add that the interaction between the ministers and the scrutiny committee is often poor. I find the lack of respect afforded to the committee very concerning. The scrutiny committee plays a vital role in the development of human rights compliant legislation and the poor-quality justifications that are given to the committee after matters have been drawn to a minister’s attention makes it difficult to believe that there is a genuine desire on the part of government to properly consider and engage with the human rights issues that their proposals present. It is very disappointing that the scrutiny committee still receives responses to its concerns which make the repeatedly highlighted mistake of just asserting the compliance of a provision because the Attorney-General had signed a compatibility statement.
The development of a framework for statements of reasons to ensure that they are adequate and useful to members of the Assembly and the scrutiny of bills committee is an excellent idea and I hope one that will come to fruition very soon. I would also like to note the report recommendation that the human rights unit undertake to inform responsible agencies of the different functions performed by the scrutiny of bills committee and compatibility assessments and statements provided with the bills.
Also, in regard to the role of the scrutiny committee, the Greens support the recommendation that the terms of reference for the scrutiny committee be amended to require it to report against the Human Rights Act on the issues raised by subordinate legislation. Again, we look forward to working with the other parties on the implementation of this measure.
A further matter that is considered in the parliamentary agreement and the report is the availability of human rights assessments and compatibility statements for private members’ bills. Given that all acts of the Assembly are of equal legal weight and importance to the community, it is important that thorough human rights consideration be given to all bills. The Greens do understand the practical issues that this initiative raises, and we hope we can work constructively to find a solution that adopts the report’s recommendation and finds a position that ensures Human Rights Act compliance for all bills.
I would also like to address the committee recommendation that all private members’ bills should be subject to the same rules requiring members to respond to scrutiny reports and explain non-responses. The Greens agree with this recommendation and support the concept that all bills should receive equal human rights scrutiny and be subject to the same mechanisms to ensure that all members can be confident of human rights compliance.
The report also raises the issue of amendments made on the floor of the Assembly and possible mechanisms of evaluating Human Rights Act compatibility. It may well be
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video