good governance practices for the protection of human rights

inadequacy of existing constitutional provisions and the potential for the erosion
of rights upheld under Australia’s common law, since rights and freedoms can
be overridden by Commonwealth, State and local government legislation. Supporters
also pointed out that, in common law, it is difficult to develop general
statements on human rights derived from individual cases, since the courts are
restricted to declarations of rights regarding the parties before them and need to
be consistent with previous decisions. As a result, the rights that are recognized
under the common law are those left after all the exceptions and limitations to
them have been dealt with. The opposition to the adoption of a bill of rights,
which was considerable at both the federal and State levels, centred on concerns
about the potential for increased litigation and the inappropriate strengthening of
the power of judges. Opponents also feared that a bill of rights would favour the
rights of criminals over those of victims.
Response
In 2002, the government of the Australian Capital Territory initiated discussion
on a bill of rights bearing several considerations in mind. First, given that the
Australian federal and State levels of government have different responsibilities,
it was deemed useful to consider a Capital Territory bill of rights, despite the absence
of a federal one. Second, it was considered important to include in a bill
of rights a set of unconditional human rights in order to ensure that the Capital
Territory would implement these rights in its laws and policies. Also, such a bill
would strengthen awareness of human rights in society at large, in the legislature
and in policymaking bodies. Third, given the strong opposition to such a bill
within the Capital Territory, its government initiated an extensive discussion and
consultation on the issue.
The Human Rights Act 2004 of the Australian Capital Territory protects civil and
political rights, and is based on the relevant standards set out in the International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
Design
The government’s strategy leading to the adoption of the Act included a lengthy
period of public consultation that allowed for community engagement in and
education on the necessity and content of a bill of rights for the Capital Territory.
The government did not present its preferred model of addressing the question,
but rather initiated a public discussion on it. An appointed Committee held town
meetings and several consultations with community and expert groups. There
were 49 public forums on the issue. The Committee also sought submissions from
the public and commissioned a poll of selected Capital Territory residents. Such
a consultative process was deemed necessary because the proposal to adopt a
human rights act was subject to significant controversy when it was introduced
to the Capital Territory Legislative Assembly.
The distinguishing characteristic of the bill of rights is that it establishes a human
rights protection process in the Legislative Assembly. Before the Assembly
54