Page 182 - Week 01 - Wednesday, 10 December 2008
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
In Australia, the rights of other Australians or those who seek refuge in this country have been encroached on. The Australian policy of mandatory detention of refugees is, according to HREOC, in breach of articles 9(1) and 9(4) of the ICCPR, based on the UDHR and ratified by Australia in 1980. Article 2(2) of the ICCPR requires state parties to take legislative and other measures necessary to protect the rights set out in the convention.
Despite this, Australia is the only advanced liberal democracy in the world without a bill of rights or dedicated human rights law. As a result, minorities, refugees and Indigenous people continue to face many disadvantages and individuals are exposed to abuses of their freedoms, such as occurred recently in the cases of Cornelia Rau and Mohammed Haneef.
The Howard government’s 2007 Northern Territory (Emergency Response) Act explicitly overrode the Racial Discrimination Act 1975, which is a direct enactment of Australia’s obligations under the Convention for the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination. The enactment of a national human rights act would make the introduction of such legislation, which effectively legalised racial discrimination, much less likely.
It has been argued by opponents of human rights legislation that it is not necessary in Australia; it is merely more red tape which creates work for lawyers; and the fundamental rights are already sufficiently protected by a system of government and its mechanisms of accountability. Recent history should teach us that this complacency is misguided. The rise of terrorism and the fear which it generates have created a political climate where this fear can be manipulated. In addition, parliaments can be reactive, often requiring intense media coverage for action to protect individual liberties.
The Stanhope Labor government is deservedly proud of its legacy in introducing the landmark ACT Human Rights Act, with the support of the Greens. I look forward to working with my colleagues from both Liberal and Labor sides of this the Seventh Assembly to carry on the good work done by our predecessors. The ACT can rightly claim considerable credit for the spread of human rights legislation in Australia. While we cannot guarantee rights on a national level, we can and should continue to act as an example to other jurisdictions in the human rights area.
The next logical step so far as our own legislation is concerned is to explore entrenching it by the process outlined in section 26 of the ACT (Self-Government) Act. This is all the more important as the act has not been unanimously supported in this Assembly. The rights it protects are so fundamental and universal that Canberrans must be able to rely on it far beyond this term of government. Other steps which need to be taken are to make more of these rights actionable in the breach and to move ahead with incorporating economic, social and cultural rights into the act.
The previous shadow attorney-general was not a supporter of the ACT Human Rights Act, yet his Charter of Responsibilities Bill had merit, for rights, arguably, cannot exist without corresponding responsibilities. In this regard at least, he was echoing the sentiments of Mohandas Ghandi, who urged us to remember that respect for human
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .