Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .
Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2003 Week 13 Hansard (25 November) . . Page.. 4582 ..
MS TUCKER (continuing):
It is becoming increasingly evident as a result of recent events such as the bushfires and the drought that the environment, including our natural resources such as water, underpins quality of life issues.
Accordingly, the EDO had, in its submission, proposed that the ACT Bill of Rights provide that:
... every ACT resident has the right to an environment that is not harmful to their health or well-being, and to have the environment protected, for the benefit of present and future generations, through reasonable legislative and other measures that (i) prevent pollution and ecological degradation; (ii) promote conservation and (iii) secure ecologically sustainable development and use of natural resources while prolonging justifiable economic and social development.
The EDO considers that safeguarding the basic and fundamental human rights to a clean environment and ecologically sustainable development is primarily a government responsibility. Therefore, any bill of rights or similar legislation should enshrine these rights.
The ACT Greens support those sentiments. I was interested to see also the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe has established the Aarhus convention. The Aarhus convention is on access to information, public participation in decision making, and access to justice in environmental matters, and came into effect on 30 October 2001. This convention was negotiated by the UN Economic Commission for Europe as part of its pan-European environmental legal framework. It is generally intended to lift the veil of environmental secrecy and strengthen citizens' environmental rights. It has now been ratified by Albania, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Denmark, Estonia, Georgia, Hungary, Italy, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, the Republic of Moldova, Romania, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and Ukraine.
Recent ozone peaks have again highlighted the need for people to have timely information about the environment so that they can take precautions and keep their vulnerable children indoors. For instance the Aarhus convention aims to ensure that everyone has access to this type of information and to prevent governments from covering up environmental disasters. This should prevent any repetition of the denials and confusion that, for example, followed the Chernobyl disaster in 1986. The convention gives ordinary citizens a voice in any decision making that affects their environment, such as deciding toxic waste dumps.
Finally, the convention is intended to ensure that public authorities and polluters that break the rules can be challenged in court either by individuals or by non-governmental organisations. For me and the Greens this is a fairly basic need. If we are having a human rights act, at the very least we should have looked at the model of the Aarhus convention and included it in the committee report as well as in this human rights act. I am considering amending the act in that regard. I do reject the argument put by some people opposing a bill of rights that our current legal system always protects people from human rights violations. Just look at what is happening in this country right now: indefinite detention of children, mandatory sentencing, reduction of the right to protest when the Chinese Trade Minister is in town, and excising parts of Australia to assure asylum seekers cannot exercise their right to claim asylum.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .