Page 1490 - Week 05 - Thursday, 7 May 2015
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
The 2010 report recommended adding a suite of rights to the Human Rights Act. That would have been a major step. The government has decided to take a minor step instead. That approach has, I think, left the authors of the report frustrated, and it has been of some frustration to the Greens. We would have liked to see a full suite of economic, social and cultural rights incorporated into the ACT’s human rights regime.
We hear discussions and arguments about the potential flood of litigation and the “lawyers’ picnic” that apparently could result from extending a legislative protection to human rights. This has simply not been the case in the ACT since this jurisdiction first legislated to protect civil and political rights. In fact, to quote the five-year review of the act:
Although critics predicted a surge in litigation and an undermining of the elected government by an unaccountable judiciary, the experience of the HRA is that its impact on policy-making and legislative processes has been more extensive and arguably more important than its impact in the courts.
I do not believe there will be a “floodgates” problem with the addition of economic, social and cultural rights either. It is worth noting in any case that the government has taken a very slow and cautious approach to introducing these rights. As I have touched on, it has actually caused frustration to many who wish to see human rights recognised and protected. It seems to me that the last thing that could happen under this approach is an opening of the litigation floodgates.
In relation to the specific right to education—which was inserted by the 2012 bill and which the bill today will activate—in 2012, as I said earlier, the Greens proposed an amendment to strengthen the right. We were concerned that the limitation would only apply to primary schooling and we believed the right should include the right to choose schooling other than schooling provided by the government that conforms to the minimum educational standards required under law, and to ensure the religious and moral education of the child in conformity with the convictions of the parent or guardian.
Those amendments were not accepted at the time. That debate is now done; the right to education has already been framed and added to the act and I will not today pursue that debate any further.
Returning to the issue of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples’ distinct cultural rights, the bill adds a new section to the Human Rights Act specifying that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples must not be denied the right “to have their material and economic relationships with the land and waters and other resources with which they have a connection under traditional laws and customs recognised and valued”.
It is important to note that this clause has been drafted with close cooperation and in consultation with the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Elected Body and the Human Rights Commission. The recognition of cultural rights and the explicit mention of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander culture is a welcome addition to the Human Rights Act and a sign of maturing and responsive government.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video