Page 5103 - Week 12 - Wednesday, 27 October 2010

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video

That is it. It is not an unreasonable adjustment and it is one that our conversations and our connections with the community convinces us would be welcomed by the community.

I would like to address some of the legislative issues raised in this bill to put them to bed before some of the more extreme accusations that are sure to come from across the chamber get thrown at us. The Human Rights Act itself recognises that human rights are subject to limitations. Section 28 provides as follows:

Human rights may be subject only to reasonable limits set by Territory laws that can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.

The proposed amendment is precisely the sort of exemption contemplated, one that arises when the strict interpretation leads to a nonsensical outcome. Given that limitations can be imposed, we have to consider whether the limitation is reasonable in all the circumstances. Again, section 28 of the Human Rights Act gives guidance. It states:

(2) In deciding whether a limit is reasonable, all relevant factors must be considered, including the following:

(a) the nature of the right affected;

(b) the importance of the purpose of the limitation;

(d) the relationship between the limitation and its purpose;

(e) any less restrictive means reasonably available to achieve the purpose the limitation seeks to achieve.

Mr Speaker, you can see from our amendment that we seek a reasonable belief that a person is of school age and it applies only during school hours. Most importantly of all, it is crucial to note that our exemption does not impose a positive obligation. That is, it does not seek to force a shop owner to refuse service. There may be many instances in which it is reasonable to do so.

It merely makes it open for a shopkeeper to choose to do so without fear of legal prosecution. This is an important distinction, so I will repeat it. This bill allows shopkeepers to choose not to serve if they have a reasonable belief that the person is a truant and not be prosecuted for doing so.

This is where this bill meets the proportionality test required under human rights legislation to limit the protection only so far as necessary to achieve its stated end—in this case to allow citizens to make a reasonable decision for the purpose of helping children maintain their education and assisting principals and the community in providing a community support system to make it happen.

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video