Page 734 - Week 02 - Thursday, 10 March 2011
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
law-making in the Territory, to ensure that human rights concerns are given due consideration in the framing of new legislation and policy.
As the Attorney-General noted on 18 August 2009, the review expresses disappointment that the courts have largely remained a spectator to the human rights dialogue over those first five years, with the use of the act in court proceedings being perfunctory and displaying a lack of understanding by the legal profession. The review concluded that the ability of the act to generate dialogue between the courts and the legislature was in question until the courts fully grasp their part in the conversation.
In this regard, the ACT came of age in November last year, with the first-ever declaration of incompatibility made by the ACT Supreme Court in the matter of an application for bail by Isa Islam. That decision signals a triumph for the dialogue model, providing an opportunity for further robust discussion about how the legislature responds. I am also pleased to see that, in February 2011, the High Court of Australia heard Australia’s first human rights case on appeal from Victoria, Momcilovich v R and others. Both these events are important landmarks in Australia’s human rights journey as they indicate a willingness to explore the application of critical human rights in our society.
Of course, the report highlights areas where more work needs to be done. The human rights performance of public authorities as assessed in the five-year report is not exemplary. The report identifies that the public sector has been slow to develop a culture of human rights. Still, there is reason for hope. We have yet to evaluate the impact of public authorities’ duty to comply with the act, as this amendment only commenced on 1 January 2009. However, anecdotal information received from community consultations following this report is that organisations are using the act more as a result of these amendments and that there has been an impact on policy.
The government acknowledges that there is more work to be done, both in government and in the community, to promote a rights-based society in the ACT. But there is no question that the Human Rights Act has been a galvanising piece of legislation, without which the development of a genuine culture of respect for human rights would be more difficult, less focused, less robust and, importantly, less resistant to erosion when the times get tough. I look forward to doing this work in consultation with our community and to the ongoing strengthening of rights of all Australians—incremental work and rightly so.
It does seem extraordinary, from this distance, to recall the language of the Liberal Party in this place at the time the bill was introduced. “The sky would fall,” those opposite implied. “Criminals would run amok on the streets. Sectoral interests would hold sway over a downtrodden and resentful majority.” None of it happened, of course. And now the nation can see and learn from our pioneering experience.
I, along with many Australians, trust the day will come when the Australian parliament will, maturely and confidently, decide that the nation as a whole could benefit from a charter of rights. Until then we will continue to do what we can, in our
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video