Page 188 - Week 01 - Wednesday, 10 December 2008
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
have played a very significant and important role in the development of these instruments and organisational structures, and it is fitting that we pay tribute to them today, on this 60th anniversary.
The declaration, of course, informs our own Human Rights Act. In that act are enshrined the civil and political rights which are in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights that sit under the universal declaration.
I would like to speak briefly today about how in the ACT we are continuing to bring real and practical effect to these rights. On 1 January next year, amendments to the Human Rights Act come into effect which require compliance with human rights in the territory to go to a new level. The amendments provide a statutory obligation duty on public authorities to undertake their work in a manner consistent with the human rights principles contained in the act and they also provide, for the first time, a statutory right of action for an individual to take in the courts if they believe there has been a breach of human rights by a public authority. All government agencies, departments and statutory organisations will be bound by this statutory duty to respect, have regard to and uphold the rights of individuals when it comes to the exercise of their functions.
Another less well known but important element of these reforms is to also provide for non-public entities to opt into this obligation. As Attorney-General, I will be pursuing with significant non-public entities their interest in opting in to the Human Rights Act and their willingness to commit to being bound by these principles of respecting and upholding human rights. There are many significant private service providers in the ACT that should potentially give serious consideration to this. So these are some important reforms that are emerging as a result of the government’s ongoing commitment to enshrining and building a human rights culture here in the ACT. The right of action and the public obligation or statutory duty on public entities are two such concrete examples of that work.
In the time remaining to me, I would like to speak briefly on the debate about the appropriateness or otherwise of enshrining these rights in instruments such as the Human Rights Act. I note Mr Seselja’s comments earlier in the debate about there still being some contention around this issue—and well there is. But I think it is worth reminding members that the defence often given in response to the claim that we need a bill of rights is that the common law and the existing framework of responsible and democratic government that we have in Australia provide citizens with adequate protections and that there is not a need to enshrine them further in pieces of legislation or bills of rights. I would reject that, and I would remind members why that argument does not hold up. It does not hold up because parliaments can legislate away rights. Indeed, it is something that we do quite often. Often, the legislating away of those rights is proportionate and reasonable, and indeed that is the requirement on us here, under the Human Rights Act. But anyone who suggests that the common law can provide a safeguard against abuse by the executive or others fails to acknowledge that the legislature can remove those rights.
The Human Rights Act in the ACT is so important because it places an obligation on us as legislators to not disproportionately or unreasonably restrict the rights of individuals. We have the obligation to maintain and protect those rights in law and to
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .