Human Rights Act 5 Year Review

8/14/2019 Human Rights Act 5 Year Review

1/95

THEHUMANRIGHTSACT2004(ACT):

THEFIRSTFIVEYEARSOFOPERATION

AREPORT

TOTHE

ACTDEPARTMENTOFJUSTICEANDCOMMUNITYSAFETY

PREPAREDBY

THEACTHUMANRIGHTSACTRESEARCHPROJECT

THEAUSTRALIANNATIONALUNIVERSITY

MAY2009
http://www.unsw.edu.au/http://www.unsw.edu.au/


2/95

REGULATORY INSTITUTIONS NETWORK (RegNet)

College of Asia and Pacific

Coombs Building #8, Cnr Fellows & Garran Roads

The Australian National University

Canberra ACT 0200

AUSTRALIA

4June2009

MrStephenGoggs

DeputyChiefExecutive

ACTDepartment

of

Justice

and

Community

Safety

GPOBox158

CANBERRAACT2601

DearStephen

OnbehalfoftheACTHumanRightsActResearchProjectteam,wearepleasedtopresent

youwiththeProjectsfinalreport. ThereportdetailsourfindingsontheimpactoftheACT

HumanRightsActduringthefirstfiveyearsofitsoperationandformsoursubmissiontothe

government'sfiveyearreviewofthelegislation. Therecommendationsinthereportare

intendedtoassisttheprocessofstrengtheningtheoperationoftheHumanRightsActasa

dialogue

model.

Pleasedonothesitatetocontactusifyouwouldliketodiscussanyoftheseissuesfurther,

orifwecanbeoffurtherassistancetothereview.

Yourssincerely

HilaryCharlesworth

ProfessorofInternationalLawandHumanRights,ANU

AndrewByrnes

ProfessorofInternationalLaw,UNSW

Onbehalfof:

GabrielleMcKinnon,

FormerDirector,

ACTHRA

Project


3/95

Contents

THEACTHUMANRIGHTSACTRESEARCHPROJECT .................................................................. 5

EXECUTIVESUMMARY............................................................................................................... 6

SUMMARYOFRECOMMENDATIONS ........................................................................................ 8

INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................... 13

OverviewoftheHRA ........................................................................................................... 13

12monthreview ................................................................................................................. 14

DUTYTOCOMPLYWITHHUMANRIGHTS............................................................................... 15

BACKGROUND ..................................................................................................................... 15

DEFINITIONOF

PUBLIC

AUTHORITY .................................................................................... 15

Exemptions ...................................................................................................................... 16

Optinmechanism ........................................................................................................... 18

OBLIGATIONSOFPUBLICAUTHORITIES .............................................................................. 19

Reasonablelimits ............................................................................................................ 20

NEWCAUSEOFACTION ...................................................................................................... 22

REMEDIES ............................................................................................................................ 22

PREPAREDNESS.................................................................................................................... 24

HumanRightsUnit........................................................................................................... 24

TheHumanRightsCommissioner ................................................................................... 25

Communityorganisations ............................................................................................... 26

THELEGISLATIVEPROCESS ...................................................................................................... 27

THELEGISLATIVEASSEMBLY................................................................................................ 27

TheALP/GreensAgreement............................................................................................ 29

THESCRUTINYOFBILLSCOMMITTEE.................................................................................. 29

Governmentresponses ................................................................................................... 31

AmendmentsontheflooroftheAssembly .................................................................... 32

Subordinatelegislation.................................................................................................... 33

OtherCommittees........................................................................................................... 34

ExposureDrafts ............................................................................................................... 34

STATEMENTSOFCOMPATIBILITY........................................................................................ 35

Explanatorystatements................................................................................................... 35

Statementsof

reasons..................................................................................................... 36


4/95

Privatemembersbills ..................................................................................................... 38

THEHUMANRIGHTSCOMMISSIONER .................................................................................... 39

Dealingwithcommunitycomplaints................................................................................... 40

Ombudsman ........................................................................................................................ 41

GOVERNMENTCULTURE ......................................................................................................... 41

MEASURINGHUMANRIGHTSPROGRESS............................................................................ 44

Publicsurveys .................................................................................................................. 44

Annualreports................................................................................................................. 45

ReviewsoftheHRA ......................................................................................................... 46

COURTSANDTRIBUNALS ........................................................................................................ 47

OVERVIEW ........................................................................................................................... 47

NotificationoftheAttorneyGeneralandtheHumanRightsCommissioner ................. 49

ReferralpowertotheSupremeCourt............................................................................. 49

INTERPRETINGLEGISLATION ............................................................................................... 50

Originalsection30........................................................................................................... 51

Amendedsection30........................................................................................................ 52

Specificissuesraisedbythecourts ................................................................................. 59

Thelegalprofession ........................................................................................................ 61

ANNEXI:INTERVIEW

REPORT ................................................................................................. 63

ANNEXII:SELECTEDPUBLICATIONS........................................................................................ 90


5/95

THEACTHUMANRIGHTSACTRESEARCHPROJECT

TheACTHumanRightsActResearchProject (theProject) isanAustralianResearch

Council

Linkage

Project

(LP0455490)

between

the

Australian

National

University

(ANU)anditsIndustryPartner,theACTDepartmentofJusticeandCommunitySafety

(JACS). The Project was established to monitor and evaluate the impact of the

HumanRightsAct2004(ACT)(HRA)overthefirstfiveyearsofitsoperation.

TheProjecthadbothpracticaland theoreticalobjectives; itcollectedandanalysed

dataabouttheimplementationandimpactoftheHRAongovernmentintheACT. It

examinedtheroleoftheHRAintheformationofexecutiveandlegislativepolicyand

itsinterpretationbythejudicialsystem.TheProjectalsousedthisdatatocontribute

to

the

debate

about

the

value

of

bills

of

rights

in

protecting

human

rights.

The

Project compiled this research in ways that are publicly accessible for researchers

and policy makers through the Project web site: http://acthra.anu.edu.au. The

Project has also produced a number of publications, including a book, articles in

international refereedjournals, media articles, conferences and presentations (see

AnnexII).

TheProjectwas ledbytwoChief Investigators;ProfessorHilaryCharlesworth from

theRegulatory InstitutionsNetwork, in theCollegeofAsiaandPacificat theANU,and

Professor

Andrew

Byrnes,

Professor

of

International

Law

at

the

University

of

New South Wales (UNSW from May 2005, previously at the ANU). Ms Gabrielle

McKinnon was appointed in May 2005 as a Research Fellow and Director of the

Project.

TheProjectestablishedaReferenceGrouptofacilitatetheconductoftheresearch.

This Reference Group involved members of the research team, representatives of

theIndustryPartnerandexpertsrepresentingarangeofviewsonthevalueofbills

ofrights. Themembershipofthegroupattheendof2008was:

ProfessorHilaryCharlesworth,ChiefInvestigatoroftheProject,ANU ProfessorAndrewByrnes,ChiefInvestigatoroftheProject,UNSW MsGabrielleMcKinnon,ProjectDirector,ANU MsReneLeon,ChiefExecutive,DeptofJusticeandCommunitySafety DrHelenWatchirs,ACTHumanRights&DiscriminationCommissioner MrMartinHockridge,LegalAidCommissionACT MrGregWalker,formerPresidentofLawSocietyACT
http://acthra.anu.edu.au/http://acthra.anu.edu.au/


6/95

EXECUTIVESUMMARY

The ACT Human Rights Act 2004 (HRA) has had considerable significance as

Australias

first

legislative

bill

of

rights.

By

breaking

the

political

deadlock,

it

has

added momentum to efforts in other Australian jurisdictions to consider the

desirability of a bill of rights, and provided a model that could be adopted and

adaptedelsewhere.

ItiscommendablethattheHRAhasnotremainedastaticdocument,andanumber

ofprovisionshavealreadybeenimprovedinresponsetothelessonslearnedinthese

early years. With the duty on public authorities to comply with the HRA and an

independent right of action in theSupreme Court forbreaches of theHRA coming

intoforce

on

1January

2009,

the

HRA's

sixth

year

should

be

its

most

significant.

ThefirstfiveyearsoftheHRAsoperationillustrateboththepotentialandthelimits

ofadialoguemodelofhumanrightsprotection. Althoughcriticspredictedasurgein

litigation and an undermining of the elected government by an unaccountable

judiciary, the experience of the HRA is that its impact on policymaking and

legislativeprocesseshasbeenmoreextensiveandarguablymoreimportantthanits

impact in the courts. Its main effects have been on the legislatureand executive,

fostering a lively, if sometimes fragile, human rights culture within government.

While

it

has

not

attracted

extensive

public

attention,

and

its

workings

have

not

always been apparent to the broader community, the HRA has operated in subtle

waystoenhancethestandingofhumanrightsintheACT.

OneoftheclearesteffectsoftheHRAhasbeentoimprovethequalityoflawmaking

intheTerritory,toensurethathumanrightsconcernsaregivendueconsiderationin

the framing of new legislation and policy. The development of new laws by the

executivehasbeenshapedbytherequirementtoissueastatementofcompatibility

foreachnewbill,andtheapproachofgovernmenthasbeeninfluencedbyarobust

dialogue with the legislature, the Scrutiny Committee and the Human Rights

Commissioner. These improved laws are likely to have tangible benefits over the

longer term, particularly in the form of additional safeguards for vulnerable

individualsinthecommunity.

Nevertheless,partsofthebureaucracyarestilltobecomefamiliarwiththeHRAand

the implications of protecting human rights. The 12month review of the HRA

recognised that the legislation had not equally penetrated all levels of the

bureaucracy, and that further support and training was required to clarify the

implementationoftheHRAtopublicservants. Thereviewalsorecognisedthatthere


7/95

wasstillmuchworktobedonetodevelopfullyacultureofhumanrightsintheACT

community. These issues are largely still present and are likely to have been

amplified by the changed environment since 1 January 2009 with the

commencement of the duty on public authorities. It will be important for the

governmentsfive

year

review

to

address

the

lack

of

systematic

education

inside

the

bureaucracy, includingwaystosupporttheHumanRightsCommissioner intraining

andeducationinitiatives. Itwillalsobeimportanttoconsolidatemeasuresthatthe

executive and legislature have adopted to ensure that these processes endure an

informedandexplicitconsiderationoftheHRA. Inthisregard,JACSas leadagency

fortheimplementationoftheHRAhasacriticalroletoplay,buttodosoeffectively

willrequiresustainedandstrategicleadershipandcommitment.

Withsomeexceptions,thecourtshave,forthemostpart,remainedaspectatorto

theHRA

dialogue

thus

far.

While

the

HRA

has

been

referred

to

in

some

91

cases

in

theACTcourtsandtribunals,andthereissomeindicationthatitsapplicationinthe

SupremeCourt is increasing, inmost instances itsusehasbeenperfunctoryand/or

displaysalackofunderstandingbythelegalprofessionoftheprovisionsoftheHRA,

andtheirpotentialapplication. Untilthecourtsfullygrasptheirpart inthehuman

rights conversation, there will remain some question as to the HRAs ability to

generatedialoguebetweenthecourtsandlegislature,andtoprovideaccountability

forthegovernmentsimplementationofhumanrights.

After

almost

five

years

of

operation,

the

HRA

has

overall

succeeded

in

creating

a

fledglinghumanrightscultureintheACT. Itisimportanttorecallthatthemajortest

oftherealsuccessoftheHRAistheextenttowhichithasshapedthepolicymaking

and legislative process, as well as the delivery of services in the ACT.

Notwithstanding the fairly limited indepth examination of the HRA in the courts

since its enactment, the progress in these other areas, which is less immediately

visible,hasbeensignificant. Ithasbroughthumanrightsquestionsexplicitlyintothe

considerationofpolicyandlegislation,therebyimprovingtheirquality. Althoughthe

findingsoftheProjectshowthatthereisstillmuchtobedone,there islittledoubt

thatthe

implementation

of

the

HRA

so

far

has

involved

important

advances

in

the

endeavourtoensurethefullenjoymentofhumanrightsintheACT. Thetaskforthe

nextfiveyearsistoincreaseanddeepenknowledgeoftheHRA.


8/95

SUMMARYOFRECOMMENDATIONS

Dutytocomplywithhumanrights

1. With respect to the definition of a public authority, consideration should begiventoremovingtheabilitytoprescribeanentityasacourtthroughregulation

asitcanpotentiallybeusedtoexpandthelistofexemptedbodies,contraryto

theintentionoftheamendments.

2. Inourview,thepolicyrationaleforpartiallyexcludingcourtsdoesnotapplytotribunals and we recommend that tribunals should be fully included in the

definitionofpublicauthorities. Iftherearesoundreasonsfortheirexemption,

thoseshould

be

explained.

3. The optin provision in s 40D should be publicised to the private sector,includinginformationonhowitworksandthebenefitsofoptingintotheHRA.

Consideration should be given to including the optin provision as a specific

requirement in government contracts. However, the preference should be to

tailorcontractstospecifythehumanrightsobligationsofcontractorsupfront.

4. Considerationshouldbegiventoamendings28toallowreasonablelimitstobeset

under

law

instead

of

only

by

Territory

laws.

This

would

enable

proportionalitytobefactored intopublicauthorityconductwherereferableto

legalsourcesotherthanTerritorylaws.

5. Training programs for public authorities should explicitly spell out the stepsrequired to comply with the obligation to properly consider human rights in

decisionmaking processes. Training programs should also include practical

guidance on how to integrate proportionality in decisionmaking processes.

Existing human rights resources on the JACS website in particular the

GuidelinesforACTDepartments:DevelopingLegislationandPolicy should be

updatedtoprovideguidanceonthesenewobligations. Thisshouldbedoneas

amatterofurgentpriority.

6. TheSupremeCourtshouldbegivena limitedpowertoawarddamagessimilartothatprovidedundertheUKHumanRightsAct1998(UKHRA),andasreflected

intheACTConsultativeCommitteeModelBill. Additionally,considerationcould

begiventoallowingapersonwhoobtainsadeclarationofincompatibilityfrom

the Supreme Court to apply to the government for an ex gratia payment of

compensation.


9/95

7. JACSshouldreviewitsresourcingandstructureoftheHumanRightsUnit(HRU)tobetterdeterminethelevelofstaffingandskillsneededtomeetthechanged

environment since 1 January 2009. Greater emphasis should also be given to

seekingpersonnel

with

qualification

and/or

practical

experience

in

human

rights

and also to staff with the capacity to deliver training on human rights to

governmentagencies.

8. JACSshouldreconvenetheInterDepartmentalCommitteeonHumanRightstooverseetheimplementationoftheamendmentsimposingobligationsonpublic

authorities, and the Human Rights Commissioner should be invited to

participateinthisforum.

9. Measuresshouldbeputintoplacetosupportcommunityorganisationssubjectto the public authorities provision. This could be in the form of funding for

themtoseektraining,ortheprovisionoffreetrainingfromtheHumanRights

Commission. Organisations that currently provide HRA training (such as the

WelfareRightsandLegalCentre)shouldalsobeprovidedwithtargetedfunding.

Selfrepresented litigants should be provided with support materials by the

SupremeCourtinrelationtothedirectrightofaction.

Thelegislativeprocess

10.TheHRUshouldclarifyto instructingagenciesthatthecompatibilitystatementand Scrutiny Committee reports perform different functions under the HRA;

MinistersshouldbeencouragedtotaketheCommitteesconcernsbacktotheir

departments for reconsideration, rather than relying on the compatibility

statementasproofofcompatibility.

11.TherequirementtoexplainnonresponsestoScrutinyCommitteereportsshouldextendtobothgovernmentandprivatemembersbills.

12.Allamendments introducedontheflooroftheAssemblyshouldbereferredtothe Scrutiny Committee unless they are urgent, minor or in response to a

ScrutinyCommitteereport.

13.The terms of reference for the Scrutiny Committee should be amended torequireittoreportontheHRAissuesraisedbysubordinatelegislation.


10/95

14.Exposure drafts should include an outline of the human rights implications ofthe draft bill, so that the community is able toconsider andrespond to these

views.

15.Astatementofreasonsshouldcontinuetobe includedwitheachcompatibilitystatement. Thestatementshouldadoptaclears28frameworkastherequisite

standard for assessing compatibility. Where a statement of reasons is not

provided,itsomissionshouldbeexplained. Whererelevant,allreasonsbehind

compatibility statements should be made publicly available, including advice

soughtfromexternalsources.

16.ThefiveyearreviewshouldcanvassthedifferentoptionsforamendingtheHRAtoincludecompatibilityassessmentsforprivatemembersbills.

HumanRightsCommissioner

17.GiventherelativeinaccessibilityofSupremeCourtproceedingsformostpeople,the Human Rights Commissioner should be given a complaintshandling

function,providedthattheHumanRightsCommission isadequatelyresourced

to undertake such a function. Alternatively, consideration could be given to

providing a complaintshandling function to the ACT Ombudsman, similar to

thatprovidedundertheVictorianChartertotheVictorianOmbudsman. Inthe

interim,we

recommend

afact

sheet

should

be

prepared

about

how

the

HRA

can

be used in complaints before the ACT Ombudsman in relation to

maladministration.

Governmentculture

18.The role of the HRU should be enhanced, with more staff and resources toprovide a centralised focus of expertise on human rights which can be drawn

uponbyotheragencies.TheHRUshouldbeprimarilyresponsibleforarranging

training for other agencies and for providing and maintaining human rights

resources. The different roles and responsibilities of the HRU and the Human

RightsCommissionershouldbemadecleartoallagencies.

19.Intensive and ongoing training on the HRA should be implemented across alllevels of government. To be most effective, this training should be tailored to

specificagenciesandrolesandshouldprovidedetailedandpracticalexamples

of the application of the HRA to the particular work of those agencies and

officers.Thistrainingshouldcoverthenewpublicauthorityobligationsandalso


11/95

supporttheguidelinesfordepartmentsannualreports,sothattherearemore

sophisticatedHRAreports.

20.An accessible and up to date resource should be created to assist publicservants

to

understand

human

rights

principles

and

developments.

This

resource could complement formal training sessions. This could build upon

existing materials available on the JACS website, and should be intelligible to

thosewithoutformal legaltraining.Thisresourcecouldalsoprovideaguideto

research and links to other sources of more detailed information and human

rightscasesfromAustraliaandoverseas(forexample:http://www.hrlrc.org.au).

21.Eachgovernmentagencyshouldbestronglyencouragedtoaudit its legislationandpolicies forhuman rightscompliance,and to identifypracticeswhichmay

be

inconsistent

with

human

rights.

Human

rights

compliance

should

be

integrated into the practices and procedures of each agency, and should be

incorporatedintoinductiontraining.

22.JACSshouldexploreopportunitiesfortheACTandVictoriatoestablisharegularbilateral dialogue at officials level on the operation of HRA and Victorian

Charter. Such a dialogue would be useful for identifying areas of common

interests which could be achieved more efficiently collaboratively than if each

jurisdictionweretopursuethem independently.Onewaytotakethis forward

wouldbe

for

the

Attorneys

General

to

meet

to

agree

on

the

terms

of

reference,

as it wouldbe useful to have the dialogue establishedat the ministerial level;

such a meeting could be scheduled into the margins of a SCAG meeting. The

agenda should includeopportunities for collaborationand informationsharing

ontraining(includingtrainingofjudges),workshops,andcurrentdevelopments.

Measuringhumanrightsprogress

23.The Human Rights Commissions public survey on the impact of the HRA is ausefulmodeltobasealongitudinalstudyofhumanrightsawarenessintheACT.

A similar process to the Australian Electoral Study could be established within

theACTelectoralcycle,ortogenerateadditionaldatapoints,twicewithinthis

cycle (that is, one every two years). Because it would take some years for

meaningful trend data to be generated, it would be important that such a

programshouldcommencesoonerratherthanlater.

24.Inadditiontoreportingagainsttheissuesidentifiedintherevisedannualreportguidelines, agenciesshouldalsoberequiredtoreportonreviewsofprocedures

and policies for compliance; whether and how they have managed their HRA
http://www.hrlrc.org.au/http://www.hrlrc.org.au/


12/95

obligations when outsourcing services, for example, whether contracts and

tenders include a requirement for HRA compliance; whether they have

developed guidelines and checklists for incorporating the HRA in decision

making;whethertheyhavedisseminatedinformationabouttheirhumanrights

obligations

to

their

client

groups;

and

whether

they

have

developed

a

rights

frameworkforcomplaintshandling.

25.Agencies should be strongly encouraged to use the revised annual reportframeworktoinitiateaprocessforbenchmarkingtheirperformanceandsetting

progressivegoalswiththeviewtocontinuousimprovement.Thisprocesscould

beusefullyinitiatedinconjunctionwiththefiveyearreview.

26.TheHRAshouldbeamendedtoprovideforongoingreviewsofitsoperationbythe

Attorney

General

on

afive

yearly

cycle.

Courtsandtribunals

27.ThenewACTCivilandAdministrativeTribunal(ACAT)shouldestablishasystemtomonitorandidentifycaseswhereHRAissuesarementioned.

28.The HRA should be amended to provide for an express referral power, whichwouldenablequestionsoflawrelatingtotheHRAthatareraisedinthecourse

of

proceedings

in

the

Magistrates

Court

or

the

ACAT

to

be

referred

to

the

SupremeCourtforresolution. Thecourtortribunalshouldbeabletomakethe

referralonitsowninitiativeoronapplicationbyaparty,whereitconsidersthat

the question is appropriate for determination by the Supreme Court.

Considerationcouldalsobegiventoenablingthecourtortribunaltocontinue

to hear severable parts of the proceedings and to hear and determine urgent

interlocutorymatterstopreventunnecessarydelay.

29.Thejudiciaryshouldbeprovidedwithtrainingthatfocusesonthemethodologyof applying amended s 30, the direct right of action provision, and sources of

internationalhumanrightsjurisprudence.Trainingprogramsneedtobeongoing

to keep up to date with current developments and include opportunities for

regularrefreshercourses.Targetedfundingshouldalsobeprovidedfortraining

programsforthelegalprofession.

30.Considerationshouldbegiventoamendingcourtprocedurerulestoprovideforcostcappingorders inHRAproceedingswherethere isasubstantial imbalance

betweenthefinancialpositionsoftheparties.


13/95

INTRODUCTION

The aim of this report is to contribute the findings of the Project to the five year

reviewof

the

HRA.

It

draws

on

the

work

of

participants

in

the

Project

and

some

bodiesoftextthatappearinthisreporthavebeentakenfromearlierpublicationsof

Projectresearchers.

ThereportbeginswithanoverviewoftheHRAandoutlinestheamendmentsarising

out of the 12month review. It then examines the new duty on public authorities,

before considering the HRAs effect on the legislative process; its influence on

governmentculture;theroleoftheHumanRightsCommissioner;anditsapplication

inthecourtsandtribunals.

OverviewoftheHRA

The HRA came into force in July 2004 and is a nonentrenched law that aims to

create dialogue about human rights between the legislature, executive and

judiciary.TheHRAemploysvariousmechanismstofacilitatethisdialogue:

(a) the obligation on decisionmakers to interpret Territory laws (includingregulations and other statutory instruments, but not the common law) to be

consistentas

far

as

possible

with

human

rights

(s

30);

(b) the express invitation to benchmark the interpretation of rights, including anylimitsonrights(s28),againstinternationalhumanrightsstandards(s31);

(c) the power for the Supreme Court to issue a declaration of incompatibility incases where legislation cannot be interpreted to be consistent with human

rights (s 32); the declaration does not affect the validity of the legislation in

question(s39),buttheAttorneyGeneralisrequiredtoreportthegovernments

responsetothedeclarationtotheLegislativeAssembly(s33);

(d) therequirementfortheAttorneyGeneraltopresentawrittenstatementonthehumanrightscompatibilityofeachgovernmentbillpresentedtotheLegislative

Assembly(s37);

(e) thepreenactmentscrutinyroleoftheScrutinyofBillsCommitteewhichreportstotheLegislativeAssemblyonthehumanrightsissuesraisedbyallbills(s38);

(f) theofficeofHumanRightsCommissioner,whichhasamongotherfunctionsthatof reviewing the effect of laws to ensure compliance with the HRA (s 41);

advising the AttorneyGeneral on the operation of the HRA; and providing

educationabouttheHRA(HumanRightsCommissionAct2005,s27);


14/95

(g) the obligation for government departments and other public authorities toreport on their implementation of the HRA in their annual reports (Annual

Reports(GovernmentAgencies)Act2004,ss5,9(3));

(h) therequirementfortheAttorneyGeneraltoreviewandreporttotheLegislativeAssembly

on

the

operation

of

the

HRA

one

year

(now

completed),

and

five

years

aftertheHRAcameintoforce(ss43,44);and

(i) from1January2009,thepositiveobligationonpublicauthoritiestocomplywithhumanrights indecisionmaking,andthedirectrightofaction intheSupreme

Courtwherethisobligationisbreached(newpt.5A).

12-monthreview

The12monthreviewoftheHRAfoundthattheActwashaving itsmostsignificant

impact at the level of policy formation in the executive and the legislature.1

NonethelessthereviewfoundthattheHRAhadnotequallypenetratedalllevelsof

the bureaucracy, and that further support and training was required to clarify the

implementationoftheHRAtopublicservants.Thereviewalsorecognisedthatthe

HRAhadnotbeenusedofteninthecourts,andtherewasstillmuchworktobedone

todevelopacultureofhumanrightsintheACTcommunity. Theseissuesarelargely

stillpresentanditwillbeimportantforthefiveyearreviewtoaddressthem.

The12

month

review

recommended

anumber

of

amendments

to

the

HRA

to

ensure

thatitoperatedmoreeffectively, includingclarifyingtheinterpretiveapproachthat

shouldbetakenunders30;creatingadutyonpublicauthoritiestocomplywiththe

rightsundertheAct;andcreatingadirectrightofactiontotheSupremeCourtfora

breachofthoserights,withoutentitlementtoclaimdamages.2

TheHumanRightsAmendmentAct2008(ACT)madetheseandotherchangestothe

HRA in twophases. The firstphaseof theamendments,whichcommencedon18

March2008,codifiedthereasonablelimitsprovisionins28;clarifiedtheinterpretive

provision

in

s

30;

and

created

new

notification

requirements

where

human

rights

issues arise in the Supreme Court in s 34. The second phase of the amendments,

whichcommencedon1January2009,createdanewPt5AoftheHRA,dealingwith

theobligationsofpublicauthoritiesandthedirectrightofaction.

1See,ACTDepartmentofJusticeandCommunitySafety(JACS),HumanRightsAct2004Twelve

MonthReviewReport(2006)andHumanRightsAct2004TwelveMonthReviewDiscussionPaper

(2006),availableat:http://acthra.anu.edu.au/Primary%20documents/twelve_month_review.pdf;and

http://acthra.anu.edu.au/Primary%20documents/12%20Month%20Review%20Discussion%20Paper%

20.pdf

2See,JACS,aboven1,Recommendations5,6,and7respectively.
http://acthra.anu.edu.au/Primary%20documents/twelve_month_review.pdfhttp://acthra.anu.edu.au/Primary%20documents/12%20Month%20Review%20Discussion%20Paper%20.pdfhttp://acthra.anu.edu.au/Primary%20documents/12%20Month%20Review%20Discussion%20Paper%20.pdfhttp://acthra.anu.edu.au/Primary%20documents/12%20Month%20Review%20Discussion%20Paper%20.pdfhttp://acthra.anu.edu.au/Primary%20documents/12%20Month%20Review%20Discussion%20Paper%20.pdfhttp://acthra.anu.edu.au/Primary%20documents/twelve_month_review.pdf


15/95

DUTYTOCOMPLYWITHHUMANRIGHTS

BACKGROUND

TheoriginalHRAdidnotincludeaspecificapplicationclause,leadingtouncertainty

astowhethertheHRAregulatedtheconductofgovernmentagencies.Thisissuewas

neverfullytestedinthecourts,andalthoughsomecasesdidappeartoapplyhuman

rights standards to the conduct of government,3 this was generally tied to an

exerciseofthe interpretivepower.4 Furthermore,theHRAdidnot initiallycreatea

newcauseofactionbaseddirectlyontheviolationofhumanrights. Nevertheless,it

waspossibletoraiseallegedviolationsoftheHRAbeforethecourts. Forexample,

theHRAcouldbe invoked incriminalproceedingsand, indeed, incivilproceedings

wherethe

issue

of

the

interpretation

of

aTerritory

law

arose.

Theoretically,

it

could

alsobeusedasthebasisofanaction,forexample,aviolationoftheHRAorafailure

to take it into account could be relied on in proceedings forjudicial review of the

actions of public authorities. However, this possibility was not tested during the

HRAsfirstfouryears.

Basedonrecommendationsmadebythe12monthreviewoftheHRA,theHuman

RightsAmendmentAct2008(ACT) introduced,witheffect from1January2009,an

explicitobligationonpublicauthoritiestocomplywiththeHRA,andcreatedadirect

rightof

action

in

the

Supreme

Court

for

breach

of

this

duty.

DEFINITIONOFPUBLICAUTHORITY

TheHRAamendmentsdefinepublicauthoritiesthroughtheidentificationofspecific

core public authorities (s 40(1)(a)(f)), coupled with a more general test for

functionalpublicauthorities,whichcapturesotherentitiescarryingoutgovernment

functions(ss40(1)(g)and40A).

Core

public

authorities

comprise

government

authorities

and

instrumentalities,

ministers, public employees and police officers when they are exercising a power

underTerritorylaw. Functionalpublicauthoritiesextendtoentitieswhosefunctions

areor includefunctionsofapublicnature,whenexercisingthosefunctionsforthe

3See,egthecommentsofHigginsCJinTranscriptofProceedings,ApplicationbyEastman(ACTCourt

ofAppeal,No26of2007,23and31August2007),summarisedat

http://www.acthra.anu.edu.au/cases/case.php?id=73viewed26August2008.

4Forexample,seeRvUpton[2005]ACTSC52,whereConnollyJinterpretedthegeneralpowersof

thecourt

under

s20

of

the

Supreme

Court

Act

1933

(ACT)

in

light

of

the

right

to

afair

trial

in

the

HRA

tograntaconditionalstayofproceedingswheretherehadbeenunduedelaybytheprosecution.
http://www.acthra.anu.edu.au/cases/case.php?id=73http://www.acthra.anu.edu.au/cases/case.php?id=73


16/95

Territory or a public authority (whether under contract or otherwise) (s 40(1)(g)).

This approach draws on the Victorian Charter and is influenced by the UKHRA

reflectingtheincreasinguseofprivatecontractorstocarryouttraditionalfunctions

of government. The HRA includes an explicit list of criteria to be considered in

applyingthe

test

of

functionality,

in

an

attempt

to

avoid

the

unduly

narrow

approach

that has been taken by the UK courts.5 Nevertheless, as Simon Evans and Carolyn

Evanshavenoted,thekeycriterionofapublicauthorityhavingafunctionconnected

to or identified with a function of government is likely to be contentious and its

meaningmayneedtobemorepreciselydeterminedbythecourts.6

Exemptions

Under s 40(2), courts are excluded from the definition of public authority except

whenthey

are

acting

in

an

administrative

capacity.

7

The

exemption

is

intended

to

avoidconflictwithHighCourtjurisprudencesuggestingthatAustraliahasoneunified

common lawwhichcannotbeunilaterallyconstrainedbyaStateorTerritory.8This

exclusionlimitsthedirectapplicationofhumanrightsofparticularrelevancetothe

courts,suchastherighttoafairtrialandtherights incriminalproceedings,which

will instead need to be enforced through statutory interpretation or through the

dutiesofpublicauthoritiessuchaspoliceorprosecutors.

However, it is possible that a robust human rightsconsistent interpretation of the

legislation

from

which

the

Territory

courts

derive

theirjurisdiction

may

overcome

someofthese limitations.9Notably,recentdecisions inVictoria,wheretheCharter

similarly exempts courts and tribunals except in their administrative capacity,10

suggest that even when acting in ajudicial capacity courts and tribunals may be

directly bound to apply those rights which relate to the powers exercised in a

proceeding: specifically the prohibition against cruel, inhuman or degrading

punishment;therighttolibertyandsecurity;childrensrightsinthecriminalprocess;

5See,

eg

Joint

Committee

on

Human

Rights,

The

Meaning

of

Public

Authority

under

the

Human

Rights

Act:NinthReportofSession200607(2007)at[101].

6EvansSandEvansC,LegalRedressundertheVictorianCharterofHumanRightsandResponsibilities

(2006)17PLR264at274.

7TheLegislativeAssemblyisalsoexcludedtopreserveparliamentarysupremacy.

8HumanRightsAmendmentBill2007(ACT),ExplanatoryStatement,p4.

9SeeRvUpton[2005]ACTSC52.

10ButnotethattheVictorianCharterhasanexpressapplicationclause,whichstates,amongother

things,thattheCharterappliestocourtsandtribunalsinrelationtotheirfunctionsunderPart2of

theCharter,

that

is,

the

list

of

substantive

human

rights,

as

well

as

their

other

specific

duties

(s6(2)(b)).TheHRAincontrastissilentontheissueoftowhomitapplies.


17/95

therighttoafairtrial;rightsincriminalproceedings;theprohibitionagainstdouble

jeopardy;andtheprohibitionagainstretrospectivepunishment.11

Onthefaceofit,theHRAdefinitionprovidesgreatertransparencythantheVictorian

model,as

it

does

not

allow

entities

to

be

excluded

through

regulation.

12

In

Victoria,

the use of regulations to exclude Parole boards from the obligations of public

authoritieshasbeencriticised.13

However,provisionwasmade intheoriginalHRA

to enable an entity to be prescribed as a court through regulation,14

which

potentiallycanbeusedtosameeffectastheVictorianprovisions.

We recommend that consideration should be given to removing the ability to

prescribeanentityasacourt through regulationas itcanpotentiallybeused to

expandthelistofexemptedbodies,contrarytotheintentionoftheamendments.

Tribunals

The original Dictionary to the HRA included the main ACT tribunals (the

Administrative Appeal Tribunal, the Discrimination Tribunal, the Guardianship

TribunalandtheMentalHealthTribunal)inthedefinitionofcourt,15

andasaresult

they are excluded from the definition of public authority, except in their

administrativecapacities. However,neithers40(2)northeExplanatoryStatement

to the amendments specifically mentions tribunals, suggesting that the exemption

wasintendedtobelimitedtocourts. Indeed,therewouldappeartobelittlereason

toexcludethesetribunalsgiventheirlimitedrolevisvisthecommonlaw. TheACT

Civil and Administrative Tribunal Legislation Amendment Act 2008 has since

amalgamated themainACT tribunalsandotherjurisdictions into theACTCiviland

Administrative Tribunal (ACAT). As a result of these changes, the HRA Dictionary

definition of court has been amended to refer to the ACAT, thereby effectively

extendingtheexemptiontosome16tribunalsandquasitribunals.16

11DeSimonevBevnolConstructionsandDevelopmentsPtyLtd(unreported)SupremeCourtof

Victoria,Court

of

Appeal,

Neave

JA

and

William

AJA,

3April

2009;

Kracke

vMental

Health

Review

Board&Ors(General)[2009]VCAT646(23April2009).

12s4(1)(k)oftheCharterofHumanrightsandResponsibilitiesAct2006(Vic)

13Seeforexample,theVictorianEqualOpportunityandHumanRightsCommissions secondannual

reportontheoperationoftheCharterofHumanRightsandResponsibilitiesAct2006(Vic),2009.

14DictionarytotheHRA,definitionofcourt. Thisdefinitionpredatestheamendments.

15ItislikelythatthisdefinitionwasintendedtofacilitatetheinterventionpowersoftheAttorney

GeneralandtheHumanRightsCommissionerundertheHRA:seetheACTBillofRightsConsultative

Committee,TowardsanACTHumanRightsAct:ReportoftheACTBillofRightsConsultative

Committee(2003)atparas4.8283.

16TheACTCivilandAdministrative TribunalLegislationAmendmentAct2008,Sch1.


18/95

Inourview, thepolicy rationale forpartiallyexcluding courtsdoesnotapply to

tribunals and we recommend that the latter should be fully included in the

definitionofpublicauthorities. If thereare sound reasons for theirexemption,

thoseshouldbeexplained.

Opt-inmechanism

Theamendmentsincludeanoveloptinprovisionwhichallowsanentitythatisnota

public authority to request the AttorneyGeneral to declare it subject to the

obligationsofapublicauthority,arequesttowhichtheAttorneyGeneralisobliged

toaccede(s40D). Theentitycanasktobereleasedfromitsobligationsatanytime,

and theAttorneyGeneral must comply with that request. The stated intention of

thisprovisionistoencouragetheprivatesectortovoluntarilysubjectitselftoexplicit

human

rights

obligations

under

the

HRA.17

The

Australian

Human

Rights

Commissioner, Graham Innes has suggested that a similar mechanism could be

consideredinproposalsforanationalbillofrights.18

TheprovisionhasbeeninoperationsinceJanuary2009butasyetnoprivatesector

organisationhaschosentooptintotheHRA;theabsenceofuptakecouldinpartbe

attributedtothelackofoutreacheffortstothebusinesscommunity,whichremains

waryoftheinitiative.19

Werecommend

that

more

efforts

are

made

to

publicise

the

provision

to

the

private sector, including information about how it works and the benefits of

optingintotheHRA.

Theoptinprovisionmayalsobeusefulforentities,whosestandingmightotherwise

be unclear under the functional test, to clarify their status as public authorities.

Optinginmightevenbeincludedasaspecificrequirementingovernmentcontracts

to ensure that contractors are bound by human rights obligations. However, it is

worth sounding a note of caution about using the provision in these ways. By

optingin,

the

entity

would

be

obliged

to

comply

with

the

HRA

in

all

its

activities,

not

justthoserelatedtoitspublicfunctions;potentially,acontractorwhoisrequiredto

17HumanRightsAmendmentBill2007(ACT),ExplanatoryStatement,pp78.

18CanberraTimes20Jan2009 Letbusinessoptintorightscharter,urgesHREOCchief:

http://acthra.anu.edu.au/media/2009/Jan%202009/Let%20business%20opt%20in%20to%20rights%2

0charter.pdf

19Seeforexample,CanberraTimesarticles:Businessesbaulkatnewhumanrightslaw23Feb2009:

http://acthra.anu.edu.au/media/2009/Feb%202009/Businesses%20baulk%20at%20new%20human%

20rights%20law.pdf;andBusinessoptsoutofhumanrights16Jan2009:

http://acthra.anu.edu.au/media/2009/Jan%202009/Business%20opts%20out%20of%20human%20rights%20act.pdf
http://acthra.anu.edu.au/media/2009/Jan%202009/Let%20business%20opt%20in%20to%20rights%20charter.pdfhttp://acthra.anu.edu.au/media/2009/Jan%202009/Let%20business%20opt%20in%20to%20rights%20charter.pdfhttp://acthra.anu.edu.au/media/2009/Feb%202009/Businesses%20baulk%20at%20new%20human%20rights%20law.pdfhttp://acthra.anu.edu.au/media/2009/Feb%202009/Businesses%20baulk%20at%20new%20human%20rights%20law.pdfhttp://acthra.anu.edu.au/media/2009/Jan%202009/Business%20opts%20out%20of%20human%20rights%20act.pdfhttp://acthra.anu.edu.au/media/2009/Jan%202009/Business%20opts%20out%20of%20human%20rights%20act.pdfhttp://acthra.anu.edu.au/media/2009/Jan%202009/Business%20opts%20out%20of%20human%20rights%20act.pdfhttp://acthra.anu.edu.au/media/2009/Jan%202009/Business%20opts%20out%20of%20human%20rights%20act.pdfhttp://acthra.anu.edu.au/media/2009/Feb%202009/Businesses%20baulk%20at%20new%20human%20rights%20law.pdfhttp://acthra.anu.edu.au/media/2009/Feb%202009/Businesses%20baulk%20at%20new%20human%20rights%20law.pdfhttp://acthra.anu.edu.au/media/2009/Jan%202009/Let%20business%20opt%20in%20to%20rights%20charter.pdfhttp://acthra.anu.edu.au/media/2009/Jan%202009/Let%20business%20opt%20in%20to%20rights%20charter.pdf


19/95

optinwillbeassuminggreaterobligationsthanthefunctionalteststrictlyrequires.

Also,anentitythatisfoundtomeetthefunctionaltestwouldbeapublicauthority

for the purposes of the HRA regardless of whether it seeks to clarify its status by

optingin;importantly,anyunilateraldecisiontooptoutshouldmakenodifference

tothat

status.

Werecommendthatconsiderationbegiventoincludingtheoptinprovisionasa

specificrequirementingovernmentcontracts. However,thepreferenceshouldbe

totailorcontractstospecifythehumanrightsobligationsofcontractorsupfront.

OBLIGATIONSOFPUBLICAUTHORITIES

Thenewobligationsonpublicauthoritiestocomplywithandconsiderhumanrights

intheir

activities

and

decision

making

processes

combine

aspects

from

the

Victorian

Charter(s38(1))andtheUKHRA(s6). Section40B(1)providesthat:

Itisunlawfulforapublicauthority

(a)toactinawaythatisincompatiblewithahumanright;or

(b)inmakingadecision,tofailtogiveproperconsiderationtoarelevanthumanright.

However,anactoradecisionwillnotbeunlawfulifmadeunderalawinforceinthe

Territory (includingaCommonwealth law)thatexpresslyrequiresthatactiontobe

taken

or

decision

to

be

made

in

a

way

that

is

inconsistent

with

human

rights,

or

the

lawcannotbeinterpretedinawaythatisconsistentwithhumanrights(s40B(2)).

Despite the exemption provision, the scope of the duty imposed on public

authoritiesunders40B isconsiderable. Anact(which includesafailuretoactora

proposal to act) that is incompatible with human rights will amount to

unlawfulness.20

Compliance with the obligation in s 40B(1)(a) will depend on the

practical outcome of the action (ie, whether it resulted in a breach of human

rights).21

Theobligationins40B(1)(b)togiveproperconsiderationtohumanrights isunique

to the HRA and the Victorian Charter. Significantly, proof of unlawfulness is not

contingentuponanactualviolationofrights.Instead,compliancewillturnpurelyon

the quality of the decisionmaking process: a defective process will give rise to

20UndertheamendeddefinitionofactintheDictionarytotheHumanRightsAct2004(ACT)

introducedbytheHumanRightsAmendmentAct2008(ACT),s9.

21However,somehumanrightshavebeeninterpretedtocompriseaproceduralcomponent,breach

ofwhich

will

amount

to

aviolation

of

the

right

concerned,

regardless

of

whether

asubstantive

breach

isestablished.


20/95


21/95

humanrights. Section28statesthatreasonable limitsmayonlybesetbyTerritory

laws,whichwouldnotincludeactionsordecisionsofpublicauthoritiesthatarenot

authorisedbyanACTstatuteorstatutory instrument.24

Buttheremayberecourse

tos28viatheobligationonpublicauthoritiestointerpretTerritorylawscompatibly

withhuman

rights

(s

30).

Where

aparticular

conduct

is

referrable

to

aTerritory

law,

thepublicauthoritywillberequiredto interpretandapplythelawcompatiblywith

human rights, and it is in that context that the reasonable limits provision in s 28

maybeenlivenedvisvisconduct. Indeed, it isaspecificdefence ins40B(2)that

conduct will not be unlawful if the law authorising the conduct cannot be

interpretedinahumanrightsconsistentway.

We recommend that training programs for public authorities include practical

guidanceonhowproportionalityshouldbeincorporatedintothedecisionmaking

process.

Thedifficultywiththereasonablelimitsprovisionins28anditsinteractionwiththe

newdutyisthats28doesnotpermitrightstobelimitedbylegalsourcesotherthan

Territory laws, whereas s 40B contemplates acts and decisions being referrable to

other legal sources, for example, public authority conduct authorised by common

lawwillbeequallysubjecttoHRAscrutiny. Itisunclearhowproportionalitycanbe

factoredintopublicauthorityconductinthesecircumstances,giventhats28allows

reasonable limitstobesetonlybyTerritory laws. The formulation ins28 ismore

restrictive

than

international

and

comparative

approaches

to

the

legality

requirementofreasonable limits. Thesetendtobe lessconcernedwiththesource

ofthelawauthorisingalimitation(itcanbeprimaryorsecondarylegislationorthe

common law) than with thequality of that law (it must be accessible and precise;

and itmustnotbearbitrary).25

Thisapproach isreflected intheVictorianCharter,

whichprovidesthatrightsmaybesubjecttoreasonablelimitsunderlaw,26

whereby

thephraseunderlawisintendedtoincludestatutoryandcommonlaw.27

24SeethedefinitionofTerritorylawintheDictionarytotheHumanRightsAct2004(ACT);s13ofthe

LegislationAct2001(ACT). Thesituationmaynotbebeyonddoubt:inHakimivLegalAidCommission

(ACT);TheAustralianCapitalTerritory(Intervener)[2009]ACTSC48,[92],RefshaugeJdescribedthe

issueascontentious.

25SundayTimesvtheUnitedKingdom(197980)2EHRR245;GoldervUnitedKingdom(1975)1EHRR

524;MalonevUnitedKingdom(1985)7EHRR14;GeneralCommentNo16[32]CCPR/C/21/Rev.1;

HRI/GEN/1/Rev.8;HuvigvFrance(1990)12EHRR528.

26s7(2)oftheVictorianCharter.

27SeeExplanatoryMemorandumtoClause7:

http://www.legislation.vic.gov.au/domino/Web_Notes/LDMS/PubPDocs_Arch.nsf/5da7442d8f61e92bca256de50013d008/CA2570CE0018AC6DCA257162001D4B2B/$FILE/551406exa1.pdf
http://www.legislation.vic.gov.au/domino/Web_Notes/LDMS/PubPDocs_Arch.nsf/5da7442d8f61e92bca256de50013d008/CA2570CE0018AC6DCA257162001D4B2B/$FILE/551406exa1.pdfhttp://www.legislation.vic.gov.au/domino/Web_Notes/LDMS/PubPDocs_Arch.nsf/5da7442d8f61e92bca256de50013d008/CA2570CE0018AC6DCA257162001D4B2B/$FILE/551406exa1.pdfhttp://www.legislation.vic.gov.au/domino/Web_Notes/LDMS/PubPDocs_Arch.nsf/5da7442d8f61e92bca256de50013d008/CA2570CE0018AC6DCA257162001D4B2B/$FILE/551406exa1.pdfhttp://www.legislation.vic.gov.au/domino/Web_Notes/LDMS/PubPDocs_Arch.nsf/5da7442d8f61e92bca256de50013d008/CA2570CE0018AC6DCA257162001D4B2B/$FILE/551406exa1.pdf


22/95


23/95

The exclusion of damages follows the Victorian example, perhaps due to concerns

aboutthepotentialfinancialliabilityofthegovernment.33

TheexperienceintheUK

suggeststhatsuchcautionmaybeunwarranted. UndertheUKHRA,courtshavea

limitedpowertoawarddamages.34

AreviewoftheUKHRA in2006notedthatthe

courtsused

this

remedy

very

sparingly

and

had

awarded

modest

damages

in

only

three reported cases.35

The ACT Consultative Committee was sensitive to the

concerns of government about the financial implications of such a remedy and

recommended that damages should be awarded as a measure of last resort, and

onlywherenecessarytodojusticeinthecase:

No award of damages is to be made unless the Court considers that an award of

damages isnecessarytoprovideaneffectiveremedytotheaggrievedperson,taking

accountofallthecircumstancesofthecaseandanyotherordermade inrelationto

the

unlawful

act

or

conduct.

36

In relation to a case in which a party obtains a declaration of incompatibility, the

HRA (like the Victorian Charter and the UKHRA) makes no provision for any other

remedyfortheviolationofaprotectedright. Analternativemodelcanbefoundin

Irelands Human Rights Act, theEuropeanConventiononHumanRightsAct2003,

which gives the government the discretion to make an ex gratia payment of

33TheNewZealandBillofRightsActdoesnotcontainanexplicitpowertoawarddamagesbutthe

courtshaveimpliedone. InBaigent'scase,SimpsonvAttorneyGeneral[1994]3NZLR667(CA),the

plaintiffwasawardeddamagesforanunlawfulentryandsearchofherpropertybythepolice,in

contraventionoftheNZBORA.TheNZCourtofAppealdeterminedthatsuchrightscreatedby

parliamentcouldnotbeemptyandtoothless,andthattheirbreachmustgiverisetoaremedy. There

have,however,beenrelativelyfewawardssincethedecisioninBaigent. SeeButlerandButler,The

NewZealandBillofRightsAct:acommentary(2005)10101016(itshouldbenotedthatanumberof

thehigherawardstheyrefertowereoverturnedorreducedonappeal).Theyconcludethatawards

undertheNZlegislationtracktheapproachoftheNewZealandcourtsinthefieldoftorts:fact

specific,oftenimpressionistic,andmoderate.(at1016)

34Section8(3)oftheUKHRAprovidesthatNoawardofdamagesistobemadeunless,takingaccount

ofallthecircumstancesofthecase,including(a)anyotherrelieforremedygranted,orordermade,

inrelationtotheactinquestion,and(b)theconsequencesofanydecisioninrespectofthatact,

thecourtissatisfiedthattheawardisnecessarytoaffordjustsatisfactiontothepersoninwhose

favouritismade.

35DepartmentofConstitutionalAffairs,ReviewoftheImplementationoftheHumanRightsAct(2006)

p18. SeealsoSeeLawCommissionandScottishLawCommission,DamagesundertheHumanRights

Act1998ReportonaReferenceunderSection3(1)(e)oftheLawCommissionsAct1965,Cmd4853,

October2000http://www.scotlawcom.gov.uk/downloads/rep180.pdf,andR(Greenfield)vSecretary

ofStatefortheHomeDepartment[2005]UKHL14andReP[2007]EWCACiv2

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2007/2.html.

36ACTConsultativeCommitteeModelBillcl9(2).
http://www.scotlawcom.gov.uk/downloads/rep180.pdfhttp://www.scotlawcom.gov.uk/downloads/rep180.pdfhttp://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2007/2.htmlhttp://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2007/2.htmlhttp://www.scotlawcom.gov.uk/downloads/rep180.pdf


24/95

compensation to an aggrieved party where a declaration of incompatibility is

made.37

WerecommendthattheSupremeCourtshouldbegivenalimitedpowertoaward

damagessimilar

to

that

provided

under

the

UKHRA,

and

as

reflected

in

the

ACT

ConsultativeCommitteeModelBill.Additionally,considerationcouldbegivento

allowingapersonwhoobtainsadeclarationof incompatibilityfromtheSupreme

Courttoapplytothegovernmentforanexgratiapaymentofcompensation.PREPAREDNESS

Commencementofthedutyonpublicauthoritiesandthedirectrightofactionwas

delayed in order to allow sufficient time to prepare for these changes. As noted

above,the

scope

of

the

new

obligations

made

it

foreseeable

that

significant

training

and a clear plan for implementation was required to ensure that government

agenciesandotherpublicauthoritieswereproperlyprepared.Amongotherthings,it

would have been important, and remains important for these efforts to be co

ordinated,andthatagencieshaveaclearunderstandingofwheretolookfortraining

andassistance.

HumanRightsUnit

Theamendmentshad important implications for the way JACS, as the lead agency

fortheHRA,neededtoprepareforthechangedenvironmentfromJanuary2009. It

would have been anticipated that these changes needed to be supported by an

increasedresourcingoftheHRUwithinJACS. Instead,theunitsprofilewasreduced

throughareorganisationanditsstaffresourcesdiminished,leavingnonewcapacity

totakeontheadditionalworkneededtopreparefortheamendments.

Although the HRU was reformed in early 2009, following Territory elections, the

concern is that it remains underresourced and lacks the capacity to properly

37Section5(4)ofthetheEuropeanConventiononHumanRightsAct2003

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2003/en/act/pub/0020/sec0005.html providesthat:

Where

(a) adeclarationofincompatibilityismade,(b) apartytotheproceedingsconcernedmakesanapplicationinwritingtothe

AttorneyGeneralforcompensationinrespectofaninjuryorlossordamage

sufferedbyhimorherasaresultoftheincompatibilityconcerned,and

(c) theGovernment,intheirdiscretion,considerthatitmaybeappropriatetomakeanexgratiapaymentofcompensationtothatparty(apayment),

theGovernmentmayrequestanadviserappointedbythemtoadvisethemastotheamount

ofsuchcompensation(ifany)andmay,intheirdiscretion,makeapaymentoftheamountaforesaidorofsuchotheramountastheyconsiderappropriateinthecircumstances.
http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2003/en/act/pub/0020/sec0005.htmlhttp://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2003/en/act/pub/0020/sec0005.html


25/95

supporttheamendedAct. Itshouldbeanticipatedthattheamendmentsare likely

toplace increasingdemandson JACS foradvice,trainingand information.Someof

this demand will be met through initiatives by the HRC and through the

establishment of a Special Counsel (Human Rights) position within the ACT

GovernmentSolicitors

office,

but

amajor

shortfall

remains

with

the

HRU.

WerecommendthatJACSshouldreviewitsresourcingandstructureoftheHRUto

better determine the level of staffing and skills needed to meet these new

challenges. Greater emphasis should also be given to seeking personnel with

qualificationand/orpracticalexperienceinhumanrightsandalsotostaffwiththe

capacitytodelivertrainingonhumanrightstogovernmentagencies.

WerecommendthatJACSshouldreconvenetheInterDepartmentalCommitteeon

HumanRights

to

oversee

the

implementation

of

the

amendments

imposing

obligationsonpublicauthorities,andtheHumanRightsCommissionershouldbe

invitedtoparticipateinthisforum.

TheHumanRightsCommissioner

The Human Rights Commissioner has noted that the new obligations will have a

significant impact on the work of the HRC, particularly in delivering training

programstothemanagementandstaffofpublicauthoritiesonwhat isrequiredto

complywiththenewduty.38

Amongotherthings,publicauthoritieswillberequired

to review existing policies and laws for compliance; to expressly include human

rights in new policies; to develop practical measures for implementation e.g.

administrative guidelines and checklists; to develop a rights strategy to apply to

contractorsandtenderers;andtodeveloparightsframeworkforinternalcomplaint

handling.39

The Commissioner has stated that these training commitments cannot

bemetwithoutadditionalresources.

TheCommissionerhaspublishedafactsheetonthenewobligations,40

andintends

tocharge

government

agencies

for

training

programs,

but

will

offer

free

training

for

38ACTHumanRightsCommission,AnnualReport20072008,p10:

http://www.hrc.act.gov.au/assets/docs/Annual%20Report%20%20with%20transmital%20

%20and%20cover.pdf

39Ibid.

40Availableathttp://www.hrc.act.gov.au/assets/docs/public%20authorities%20factsheet.pdf
http://www.hrc.act.gov.au/assets/docs/Annual%20Report%20-%20with%20transmital%20-%20and%20cover.pdfhttp://www.hrc.act.gov.au/assets/docs/Annual%20Report%20-%20with%20transmital%20-%20and%20cover.pdfhttp://www.hrc.act.gov.au/assets/docs/Annual%20Report%20-%20with%20transmital%20-%20and%20cover.pdfhttp://www.hrc.act.gov.au/assets/docs/Annual%20Report%20-%20with%20transmital%20-%20and%20cover.pdfhttp://www.hrc.act.gov.au/assets/docs/Annual%20Report%20-%20with%20transmital%20-%20and%20cover.pdfhttp://www.hrc.act.gov.au/assets/docs/public%20authorities%20factsheet.pdfhttp://www.hrc.act.gov.au/assets/docs/public%20authorities%20factsheet.pdfhttp://www.hrc.act.gov.au/assets/docs/Annual%20Report%20-%20with%20transmital%20-%20and%20cover.pdfhttp://www.hrc.act.gov.au/assets/docs/Annual%20Report%20-%20with%20transmital%20-%20and%20cover.pdf


26/95

community organisations.41

Additionally the Commissioner plans to run trainthe

trainerprogramstohelpextenditstrainingactivities.42

Communityorganisations

Theamendments

are

likely

to

increase

the

relevance

of

the

HRA

to

the

community

sector because some organisations may now become subject to the Act. As

discussed above, the definition of public authority includes those entities whose

functions are or include functions of a public nature.43

The uncertainty about the

precisescopeofthisdefinitionhasledtosomeanxietyinthecommunitysector. The

DirectoroftheACTCouncilofSocialService,RoslynDundas,recentlysaid:

Idprefertogetitrightfromtheoutset,leavingthelegalprocessasanecessaryback

up.ThetimetakentogetadecisionthroughaSupremeCourtprocesscanbetimely

andnot

encouraging

for

someone

without

access

to

safe

housing

or

other

supports.44

Community organisations are also concerned about the direct right of action

provision. In particular some organisations have raised concern that the right of

action isonlyjusticiablethroughtheSupremeCourt.45

Theconcern isthatthiswill

restrictaccesstoselflitigatedclaimantsandforcommunityorganisations,becauseit

is procedurally complex and expensive to access. In Victoria there is evidence of

increasingcommunitysectorreformtoensurethatorganisationsarecompliantwith

thenewhumanrightsstandards.46

We recommend thatmeasures are put into place to support community organisations

subjecttothepublicauthoritiesprovision.Thiscouldbeintheformoffundingforthem

toseek training,or theprovisionof free training from theHRC.Furtherwe recommend

fundingorganisationsthatcurrentlyprovideHRAtraining,suchastheWelfareRightsand

LegalCentre. Selfrepresentedlitigantsshouldbeprovidedwithsupportmaterialsbythe

SupremeCourtinrelationtothedirectrightofaction.

41Helen

Watchirs

speech,

10

December

2008

Community

Forum,

available

on

the

HRC

website:

http://www.hrc.act.gov.au/index.cfm?MasterTypeID=2&SectionTypeID=17&MainTypeID=17

42HumanRightsCommissionAnnualReport20072008,p10.

43HRAs40(1)(g)

44RoslynDundas,speechmadeattheHumanRightsCommissionCommunityForumon10December

2008,availableontheHRCwebsite:

http://www.hrc.act.gov.au/index.cfm?MasterTypeID=2&SectionTypeID=17&MainTypeID=17

45Discussionraisedatthe10December2008HRCcommunityforum.

46VictorianCouncilofSocialService(VCOSS),UsingtheCharterinPolicyandPractice:Waysinwhich

communitysector

organizations

are

responding

to

The

Victorian

Charter

of

Human

Rights

and

Responsibilities(2008).
http://www.hrc.act.gov.au/index.cfm?MasterTypeID=2&SectionTypeID=17&MainTypeID=17http://www.hrc.act.gov.au/index.cfm?MasterTypeID=2&SectionTypeID=17&MainTypeID=17http://www.hrc.act.gov.au/index.cfm?MasterTypeID=2&SectionTypeID=17&MainTypeID=17http://www.hrc.act.gov.au/index.cfm?MasterTypeID=2&SectionTypeID=17&MainTypeID=17


27/95

THELEGISLATIVEPROCESS

OneoftheclearesteffectsoftheHRAhasbeentoimprovethequalityoflawmaking

inthe

Territory.

The

development

of

new

laws

by

the

executive

has

clearly

been

shapedby therequirementto issueastatementofcompatibility foreachnewbill,

andtheapproachofgovernmenthasbeeninfluencedbyarobustdialoguewiththe

legislature,theScrutinyCommitteeandtheHumanRightsCommissioner.

THELEGISLATIVEASSEMBLY

During the 6th

Assembly (20042008), without the usual checks and balances of a

crossbench, the HRA took on increased importance as a tool to encourage

government

accountability.

Although

the

Liberal

Opposition

remained

sceptical

abouttheHRA,labellingitpoliticalselfindulgence,47

andthreatenedtorepealitif

elected,48

itsmembers,aswellasthesinglememberoftheACTGreens,increasingly

reliedontheHRAtoholdthegovernmentto itsownhumanrightsstandards.This

occurredinthecontextofbreachesoftheHRAatQuambyyouthdetentioncentre,49

government intervention inthebushfirecoronial inquest,50

supportforcompulsory

student unionism,51

treatment of public housing tenants,52

reducing access to

administrative review,53

imposing penalties for removing trees,54

criticising

opponents of its civic development plan,55

and prematurely closing parliamentary

debates.56The

government

itself

regularly

used

the

HRA,

both

to

oppose

proposals

beforetheAssemblyandtosupportitsownargumentsindebates.57

47ACT,ParliamentaryDebates,5April2005,1364(RichardMulcahy).

48See,forexample,ACT,ParliamentaryDebates,15March2007,656(BillStefaniak).Underthe

leadershipofZedSeselja,however,theOppositionspolicyofrepealmaybereconsidered.See,for

example,thecommentsofZedSeseljaregardingtheLiberalpartytakinganopenmindtothefive

yearreviewoftheHRA:ACT,ParliamentaryDebates,4March2008,383.

49See,forexample,ACT,ParliamentaryDebates,29June2005,247980(JacquiBurke,Richard

Mulcahy,ZedSeselja).

50ACT,ParliamentaryDebates,1December2004,188(JacquiBurke).

51ACT,ParliamentaryDebates,6April2005,141216(VickiDunne,RichardMulcahy).

52ACT,ParliamentaryDebates,5April2005,135253(JacquiBurke).

53ACT,ParliamentaryDebates,18August2005,28678(VickiDunne).

54ACT,ParliamentaryDebates,20September2005,33501(JacquiBurke).

55ACT,ParliamentaryDebates,4May2005,1754(BrendanSmyth).

56ACT,ParliamentaryDebates,10March2005,887(BrendanSmyth).

57See,forexample,ACT,ParliamentaryDebates,27August2008.Duringthedebateaboutthe

ProtectionofPublicParticipationBill2008,thegovernmentarguedagainsttheinclusionofarightto

publicparticipationonthebasisthatthiswouldcreateahumanrightoutsidetheHRA.


28/95

Some issues that produced serious human rights debate included the framing of

offences against pregnant women, and whether the right to life under the HRA

preventsappropriateprotectionoftheunbornfoetus;58

theuseofprivativeclauses

andcallinpowerswhichareintendedtopreventlitigation;59

theuseofstrictliability

offences,

and

the

appropriate

level

of

justification

to

be

provided

by

the

government;60

loweringthecompulsoryvotingage intheACTto16, inaccordance

with the right to equality, and the rights of children;61

retrospective provisions in

planning legislation;62

amendments to theFreedomof InformationAct1989 (ACT),

and the perception that the government lacks transparency;63

a proposed needle

exchange program in the new prison;64

and detention powers proposed for the

HealthProfessionsTribunal.65

Terrorism(ExtraordinaryTemporaryPowers)Act2006

Agood

example

of

the

effect

of

the

HRA

on

ACT

legislation

is

the

co

operative

counter

terrorismregimeproposedbytheCommonwealthgovernmentinthewakeoftheLondon

bombings in 2005. Although the ACT government had committed to introduce parallel

antiterrorismlaws,itwashighlycriticaloftheCommonwealthsAntiTerrorismAct(No2)

2005 (Cth), maintaining that many provisions of this Act were in breach of the right to

liberty under the ICCPR. JACS prepared legislation that it considered human rights

compliant,referringanexposuredraftbilltotheStandingCommitteeonLegalAffairs.The

ACTsTerrorism(ExtraordinaryTemporaryPowers)Bill2006differedinmanyaspectsfrom

the Commonwealth regime, including its provisions forjudicial oversight of preventative

detentionorders, the exclusion of children from thepreventative detentionregime, and

theomissionofdraconianpenaltiesfordisclosingthefactofdetention.TheBillwastabled

withanadviceonhumanrightscompliancebySydneybarristerKateEastman.The2005

counterterrorismregimewasoneareainwhichtheACTwas abletohavesomeinfluence

over the debate at national level, with the Chief Minister releasing both the draft

Commonwealth lawsandhisadviceaboutthehumanrightscompatibilityonhiswebsite,

galvanisingoppositiontothenationallaws.

58ACT,ParliamentaryDebates,16February2006,264ff(debateontheCrimes(Offencesagainst

PregnantWomen)AmendmentBill2005(ACT)).

59See,forexample,ACT,ParliamentaryDebates,16February2006,248ff(debateontheuseofthe

Land(Planning

and

Environment)

Act

1991

(ACT)

in

relation

to

the

Alexander

Maconochie

prison).

60See,forexample,ACT,ParliamentaryDebates,20October2005,3928ff(debateontheCriminal

CodeHarmonisationBill2005(ACT));ACT,ParliamentaryDebates,31May2007,1335ff(ZedSeselja)

(debateontheCorrectionsManagementBill2006(ACT)).

61ACT,ParliamentaryDebates,29March2006,798805.

62ACT,ParliamentaryDebates,28February2007,109(ZedSeselja).

63ACT,ParliamentaryDebates,8March2007,346(BillStefaniak).SeealsothecommentsofVicki

Dunneonopenandaccountablegovernment:ACT,ParliamentaryDebates,8March2007,1752.

64ACT,ParliamentaryDebates,31May2007,1333ff.

65ACT,

Parliamentary

Debates,

14

November

2006,

3413ff

(debate

on

the

Health

Legislation

AmendmentBill2006(No2))


29/95

SeegenerallyAndrewByrnesandGabrielleMcKinnon,TheACTHumanRightsAct2004

and the Commonwealth AntiTerrorism Act (No 2) 2005: a triumph for federalism or a

federaltriumph?inMiriamGaniandPeneMathew(eds),FreshPerspectivesontheWar

on Terror (ANU Epress, 2008) 361377, available at:

http://epress.anu.edu.au/war_terror/pdf/ch16.pdf

ChildrenandYoungPeopleAct2008

Another example of how the HRA has influenced the legislative process is the

developmentof theChildrenandYoungPeopleAct2008 (ACT).This isacomprehensive

updatingandcodifyingstatutethatisintendedtobetheprimarylawintheACTproviding

for the protection, care and wellbeing of children and young people. The government

releasedanexposuredraftofthelegislationandtheHumanRightsCommissionerandthe

ChildrenandYoungPeoplesCommissionermadesubmissions.Humanrights issueswere

raisedby

practices

such

as

therapeutic

protection

orders,

pre

natal

reporting

of

children

at risk, stripsearching of detained children, and behaviour management schemes

proposed for a youth detention centre. These human rights issues were considered

extensivelybypolicyofficersinvolvedinthepreparationofthelegislation,withassistance

from the Human Rights Unit. This is reflected in the lengthy Explanatory Statement

presentedwiththeBill,whichrefersnotonlytotheprovisionsoftheACTHRA,butalsoto

anarrayofrelevantinternationalstandards,includingtheConventionontheRightsofthe

ChildandUnitedNationsprinciplesrelatingtojuvenilejustice. Italsodrawsontheaudit

reportsoftheACTHumanRightsCommissioner.

TheALP/GreensAgreement

On31October2008,theACTGreensandtheACTLaborPartysignedaParliamentary

Agreementrelatingtotheconductofthe7thACTLegislativeAssembly. Twoofthe

commitmentssetout intheAppendixtotheagreementarespecificallyrelevantto

theoperationoftheHRA:

3.7AmendmentstotheHumanRightsAct2004requiringallPrivateMembersBillsto

beassessedforcompliancewiththeAct.

3.8StatementsofcompliancewiththeHumanRightsAct2004to includeadetailed

Statement of Reasons, recognising more detailed consideration of the resource

implications.

Theagreementalsoresultedintheadoptionofvarioustemporaryorderswhichwill

operateforthedurationofthe7th

Assembly. Thesechangesarediscussedbelow.

THESCRUTINYOFBILLSCOMMITTEE

The

HRA

has

significantly

enhanced

the

role

of

the

Standing

Committee

on

Legal

Affairs, performing the duties of a Scrutiny of Bills and Subordinate Legislation
http://epress.anu.edu.au/war_terror/pdf/ch16.pdfhttp://epress.anu.edu.au/war_terror/pdf/ch16.pdf


30/95

Committee (the Scrutiny Committee).66

Whereas previously the bipartisan

Committee had looked for undefined intrusions into personal liberties, it is now

required under s 38 of the HRA to adopt a broad and explicit human rights

frameworkwhenexaminingallbills,bothgovernmentandprivate, introduced into

theAssembly.

Asanonpartisanbody,theCommitteedoesnotcommentonthepolicyaspectsof

the legislation it scrutinises,67

and has generally not considered it appropriate to

take a conclusive view on whether particular limitations on rights can bejustified

underthelimitationprovisionins28oftheHRA,leavinginsteadthesequestionsto

be considered by the Assembly.68

This approach differs from that taken by the

VictorianScrutinyofActsandRegulationsCommittee,whichsimilartotheUKJoint

Parliamentary Committee on Human Rights, has taken a more handson approach

when

assessing

the

proportionality

of

limitations.69

However,

the

Committee

has

increasingly provided guidance on the methodology for applying s 28,70

and it has

occasionallyexpressedstrongopinionsaboutwhetherparticularlimitationsmightbe

considereddisproportionate.71

The inclusionof,andjustification for,strict liabilityoffenceshavebeenanongoing

themeintheScrutinyCommitteereports.TheCommitteehascommentedatlength

on these matters, and has frequently noted the inadequacy of some Explanatory

Statementsinaddressingtheissues. In2005,theChiefMinisteracknowledgedthat

an

impasse

had

been

reached

between

the

views

of

the

government

and

the

Committee, and agreed to refer the issue to ACT Standing Committee on Legal

Affairs for inquiry.72

The Committee released its report in February 2008,

66From2008theStandingCommitteeonJusticeandCommunitySafety(performingthedutiesofa

ScrutinyofBillsandSubordinateLegislationCommittee)

67RoleoftheCommitteeassetoutintheprefacetoeachScrutinyReport.SeeegScrutinyReport

No56(2008).

68ForanoverviewoftheissuesraisedbytheScrutinyCommitteeinitsreportsfromthebeginningof

2007and

government

responses

to

these

comments,

see

ACT

Human

Rights

Act

Research

Project,

TheScrutinyCommitteeandtheHRA2007,AustraliasFirstBillofRights:AssessingtheImpactofthe

ACTHumanRightsAct2004

http://acthra.anu.edu.au/resources/Scrutiny%20Committee%20reports%20table.pdf.

69SeeforexampleVicSARCReportNo3of2009at:

http://www.parliament.vic.gov.au/sarc/Alert_Digests_09/Alert%20Digest%20No%203%20of%202009

.pdf

70SeePeterBayne(legaladvisortotheScrutinyCommittee),TheHumanRightsAct2004(ACT):

developmentsin2004,CanberraLawReview;(8)2005:137166,149

71See,forexample,ScrutinyCommittee,ParliamentofACT,ScrutinyReportNo16(2005)4,

discussingtheCourtProcedures(ProtectionofPublicParticipation)AmendmentBill2005(2007).

72ParliamentaryDebates,20October2005,39334(JonStanhope,ChiefMinister).
http://acthra.anu.edu.au/resources/Scrutiny%20Committee%20reports%20table.pdfhttp://www.parliament.vic.gov.au/sarc/Alert_Digests_09/Alert%20Digest%20No%203%20of%202009.pdfhttp://www.parliament.vic.gov.au/sarc/Alert_Digests_09/Alert%20Digest%20No%203%20of%202009.pdfhttp://www.parliament.vic.gov.au/sarc/Alert_Digests_09/Alert%20Digest%20No%203%20of%202009.pdfhttp://www.parliament.vic.gov.au/sarc/Alert_Digests_09/Alert%20Digest%20No%203%20of%202009.pdfhttp://acthra.anu.edu.au/resources/Scrutiny%20Committee%20reports%20table.pdf


31/95

recommending a comprehensive audit of ACT legislation to determine the

prevalenceofstrictliabilityoffencesandtheirappropriatenessineachcase.73

Governmentresponses

The

responses

of

the

government

to

the

Scrutiny

Reports

suggest

that

serious

consideration is being given to the views of the Committee. The government has

amendedsomelegislativeproposalsinlightofcriticismsintheCommitteesreports,

forexampleby limitingoverlybroadpowersgiventotheEnvironmentalProtection

Authority under the Water Resources Bill 2007 (ACT) and restricting the powers

given to the Health Professions Tribunal to issue warrants of detention under the

HealthLegislationAmendmentBill(No2)2006(ACT).74

The Committee has also been willing to enter into dialogue with the government

over its comments. For example, the Committee commented that proposed

restrictions on the display of smoking advertisements in the Tobacco Amendment

Bill 2008 were likely to breach the right to freedom of speech.75

The government

responded that the Committee's concerns were unnecessary, as the HRA applied

only to individuals and not to corporations.76

The Committee responded by

explaining that commercial free speech might still be made by individuals,

particularlyinsmallbusiness.77

More often, however, the government has provided additional justification in

responsetotheCommitteesconcerns,buthasdefendeditsviewsoncompatibility.

Theremayalsobeatendencyforsomegovernmentagenciestoviewthestatement

of compatibility as a sufficient answer to issues raised by the Scrutiny Committee,

which limits thepotential for fruitfuldialogue.Forexample, inhis response to the

Committees concerns over provisions of the Domestic Animals Amendment Bill

2007(ACT),MinisterJohnHargreavesnotedthat:

TheprovisionsoftheBillweredraftedafterdiscussionwithParliamentaryCounsels

Office and in consultation with the Human Rights Unit A Human Rights

CompatibilityStatementhasbeenprovidedfortheBillinitsentirety.Consequently,I

73StandingCommitteeonLegalAffairs,ParliamentofACT,StrictandAbsoluteLiabilityOffences

(2008).

74ScrutinyCommittee,ParliamentofACT,ScrutinyReportNo34(2006).Theproposednews59Awas

removedpursuanttoanamendmentproposedbytheMinisterforHealth:ACT,Parliamentary

Debates,14November2006,3424,34267(KatyGallagher).

75ScrutinyReport52.

76ScrutinyReport54.

77ScrutinyReport54.


32/95

am confident that the strict liability offences created and the additional defences

providedadequatelyaccommodatetherequirementsoftheHRA.78

WerecommendthattheHRUclarifytoinstructingagenciesthatthecompatibility

statement

and

Scrutiny

Committee

reports

perform

different

functions

under

the

HRA;Ministers shouldbeencouraged to take theCommittees concernsback to

their departments for reconsideration, rather than relying on the compatibility

statementasproofofcompatibility.

Thegovernmentrespondstomost ifnotallreportsbytheCommittee. Duringthe

6th

Assembly(20042008),Committeereportson13governmentbillsdidnotreceive

a formalresponse;nineofthesebillswentontobepassed.Reportson21private

members bills received no response in that same period. Overall, 270 bills were

introduced

duringthe

6

th

Assembly,

comprising

217

government

bills

(five

lapsed)

and53PMBs(ninewerepassed;onewaswithdrawn;22werenegatived;21lapsed).

Pursuanttoanewtemporaryorderadoptedforthe7th

Assembly(resultingfromthe

Greens/ALP Agreement), the relevant Minister can be asked to account for the

failure to respond to a Committeereport within three months of the report being

tabled.79

We recommend that nonresponses to Committee reports on privatemembers

billsshould

be

subjected

to

the

same

rule

as

these

bills

have

an

increased

significanceinthecontextofminoritygovernment.80

AmendmentsontheflooroftheAssembly

A limitation of the HRA preenactment scrutiny process is that there is no

requirementtoreportonthecompatibilityofamendments introducedonthefloor

of the Assembly. It is not uncommon for amendments to be moved during the

passage of a bill, sometimes these can be substantial and involve what are

essentiallynew policies.81

Inaneffort to close this gap, the Assemblyhasrecently

adopted a new temporary order which will require amendments proposed by the

GovernmentonitsownbillstobereferredtotheScrutinyCommitteebeforeitcan

78ScrutinyCommittee,ParliamentofACT,ScrutinyReportNo46(2007)appendix(responseby

MinisterJohnHargreavestocommentsbytheCommitteeinScrutinyReport43).

79Temporaryorder254A,9December2008,ACTLegislativeAssemblyStandingandTemporary

Orders(Feb2009).

80AswasrecentlyevidencedbytheGovernmentsFOIreformsbeingdefeatedinfavourofMs

DunnesFreedomofInformationAmendmentBill2008.

81See,

for

example,

the

ACT

Civil

and

Administrative

Tribunal

Legislation

Bill

2008,

where

extensive

amendmentswerepassedwithouttheopportunitytoassesstheircompatibilitywiththeHRA.


33/95

be passed.82

The Assembly can waive this requirement if the amendments are

urgent,minororinresponsetoaScrutinyCommitteereport.

We recommend that all amendments introduced on the floor of the Assembly

shouldbe

referred

to

the

Scrutiny

Committee

unless

they

are

urgent,

minor

or

in

responsetoaScrutinyCommitteereport.

Subordinatelegislation

UndertheHRA(s38),theScrutinyCommitteehasnoexpressmandatetoreporton

thehumanrightsissuesraisedbysubordinatelegislation.TheScrutinyCommittees

legaladvisorforsubordinate legislation,StephenArgument,hascommentedthat it

is curiousthattheCommitteewasgivennorole inthisrespect.83

Bycontrast,the

equivalent Victorian Scrutiny of Bills and Regulation Committee is specifically

requiredtoreportonthecompatibilityofsubordinatelegislationwiththeVictorian

Charter.84

In practice, the Committee does undertake a rights assessment of subordinate

legislation,andparticularissueslikestrictliabilityoffencesaregivenequalattention,

butitdoessowithintheframeworkofitstraditionaltermsofreference:

TheCommitteenotesthattheExplanatoryStatementaccompanyingthissubordinate

lawcontainsnodiscussionofeventhefactthatthesubordinatelawcontainsastrict

liabilityoffence.

As

aresult,

the

Committee

draws

the

Legislative

Assemblys

attention

tothissubordinatelaw,onthebasisthatitmaybeconsideredtotrespassundulyon

rights previously established by law, contrary to principle (a)(ii) of the Committees

termsofreference.(ScrutinyReportNo.22February2009)

However, the Committee essentially undertakes two separate strands of reporting

andpotentiallyrisksadoptinginconsistentpositionsonsimilarissues.

Werecommend,inlinewiththeVictorianexample,thatthetermsofreferencefor

theScrutiny

Committee

be

amended

to

require

it

to

report

against

the

HRA

on

the

rightsissuesraisedbysubordinatelegislation.

82Temporaryorder182A,26February2009,ACTLegislativeAssemblyStandingandTemporary

Orders(Feb2009).

83StephenArgument,TheLegislativeInstrumentsAct2004:Isitthecherryonthetopofthe

legislativescrutinycake?,pg13at

http://www.parliament.act.gov.au/conferences/scr

Date post:	30-May-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	north-canberra-community-council-inc
View:	215 times
Download:	0 times

Human Rights Act 5 Year Review

Documents