Page 554 - Week 02 - Tuesday, 10 February 2009
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
10 of the Human Rights Act and the government has responded on the basis of advice, expert advice, from its officials within the department of justice and, indeed, from the Human Rights Unit that yes, on the basis of international precedent, most particularly Keenan v the United Kingdom, a decision of the European Court of Human Rights, this response, the impounding of a vehicle in these circumstances, is a proportionate response so far as human rights jurisprudence is concerned.
Were that not the case, the government would not have introduced the bill and would not have tabled, as it has, a statement that on the basis of its advice the legislation is compliant with the Human Rights Act. And it is compliant. We believe, on the basis of advice to us, that it is compliant and that is a position that is supported by international jurisprudence. The case law relevant to this particular issue, most specifically directly at the impounding of vehicles, is that this response meets the proportionality test according to the European Court of Human Rights. And that is, of course, an authority of which we have due regard, and appropriately so.
So I want to make that point. I wish to offer that rebuttal to any suggestion that the impounding of a vehicle in the circumstances contemplated is a disproportionate response in the context of human rights. We all have a view about whether or not it is proportionate in terms of perhaps our own values or view of the world. I think it is quite proportionate. You do not. But so far as human rights law and jurisprudence are concerned, it is proportionate.
MR COE (Ginninderra) (7.51): In response to the Minister for Territory and Municipal Services’ comments regarding proportionality, I find it very hard to believe that taking someone’s car for dumping litter is proportionate. Cars are not impounded if a vehicle is used in a murder, in a manslaughter, in a break and enter or for fraud. So I find it very hard to believe that it would be applicable here for illegal dumping.
I think this is another classic example of the government being out of touch and not having their priorities right, simply because the penalty is not proportionate to the offence. After all, all this is simply hot air unless there are actual enforcement powers, unless there is a sizeable resource that can be utilised by rangers and by the police to visibly see people dumping or to have a considerable amount of evidence to show that someone did actually dump. Otherwise this is simply hot air; this would just be more text in a law that would not actually be implemented because of inappropriate resources.
I support the Greens’ amendment to drop clauses 5 and 6 from this bill as I think the deterrent would still be there, the sentiment would very clearly be articulated and it would send a strong message to all of those that may have dumped before, or will dump in the future, that they should think twice before doing so.
Amendments agreed to.
Bill as a whole, as amended, agreed to.
Bill, as amended, agreed to.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .