Social Development Committee: Inquiry into the Potential for a Human Rights Act for South Australia

Ms WORTLEY (Torrens) (11:59): I move:

That the final report of the committee, entitled Inquiry into the Potential for a Human Rights Act for South Australia, be noted.

The terms of reference for this important inquiry were referred on the Social Development Committee's own motion on 30 October 2023. At the onset, the committee thanks all those who submitted evidence to the inquiry, and a full list of submitters and witnesses is contained in the report. That said, the committee wishes to particularly thank the following individuals and organisations for their significant contributions to the area of human rights. The committee is grateful for their comprehensive input to the inquiry. They are:

Associate Professor Sarah Moulds and the Rights Resource Network, South Australia;

Professor Matthew Stubbs;

the Office of the Guardian for Children and Young People and the Commissioner for Children and Young People;

the Justice and Society Unit, University of South Australia;

the Castan Centre for Human Rights Law and Dr Julie Debeljak;

the Human Rights Law Centre;

Ms Natalie Wade and Australian Lawyers for Human Rights;

the Human Rights and Coercion Reduction Committee, Office of the Chief Psychiatrist; and

the Public Law and Policy Unit, University of Adelaide.

The committee also thanks the secretariat staff, Ms Robyn Schutte and Ms Mary-Ann Bloomfield, for their work on the inquiry. I would also like to acknowledge the committee members: the Presiding Member, the Hon. Ian Hunter MLC; the Hon. Mira El Dannawi MLC; the Hon. Robert Simms MLC; the member for Unley; and the member for Frome.

The committee advertised for submissions to the inquiry through metropolitan and regional print media, and was promoted through the South Australian parliament website and the South Australian parliament Facebook page. A media release was distributed in December 2023, in time for International Human Rights Day on 10 December that year. In addition, the committee directly invited submissions from a wide range of government and non-government organisations and special interest organisations and individuals.

The committee received 325 written submissions: 58 of these submissions were from individuals; five were jointly authored submissions from individuals; 72 submissions were received from non-government organisations, associations, and legal and advocacy groups; seven submissions were received from university departments; and nine submissions were received from government, local government and statutory officeholders. The remaining 174 submissions were received through an online proforma.

The committee held 12 hearings of oral evidence at Parliament House in Adelaide. Oral evidence was given by representatives of 19 organisations, and by five individuals. The majority of written submissions received, numbering 131, were in favour of a human rights act for South Australia; four submissions were against a human rights act for South Australia; and 188 submissions were noncommittal—that is, they were neither specifically opposed nor supportive of a human rights act for South Australia.

Members in this place will be aware that South Australia has a proud history of progressive social reform and has, at times, been a leader in Australia in realising rights for minority, marginalised and vulnerable groups. Indeed, there have been several attempts in the past to establish a human rights framework by former members in this place. However, these past attempts have not been realised, and the committee received evidence that over the past few decades South Australia's rights-based agenda has diminished. We are now considered an outlier where human rights are concerned.

Some of the submissions received by the committee showed that human rights in South Australia are only partially protected through various laws, and these have numerous gaps, making them limited in scope and enforceability. The Equal Opportunity Act 1984 requires updating, and the committee received evidence that with few or no legislative protections to remedy human rights breaches, there will continue to be inadequate justice for complainants.

The committee was informed that South Australia has not kept up with several of the other states and territories, namely Victoria, the Australian Capital Territory and Queensland, nor has South Australia kept pace with many OECD countries and advanced democracies in the progression of human rights and the modernisation of discrimination law.

Numerous submissions provided views on the strengths and benefits of a human rights act, including that such an act would improve the lives of South Australian women, children and young people, people with disabilities and mental ill-health, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, LGBTQIA+ people, and people experiencing poverty or homelessness.

Australia is a signatory to seven core United Nations human rights treaties but the committee received submissions advising that in order to provide protection for fundamental human rights set out in these instruments, human rights legislation needs to be enacted at the domestic level. This means South Australian residents can only benefit from the UN treaties through fulfilment of Australia's obligations under international law. This can be achieved by enforcing human rights legislation in this state.

Many submissions agree as a starting point that a human rights act for South Australia should contain the rights already identified in the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the seven UN human rights treaties, to which Australia is a signatory. These include the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. Some submissions recommended that South Australia draw on the experience of the three other states and territories which have already implemented a human rights act or charter, as well as from New Zealand, the United Kingdom and Canada. Numerous submissions recommended the rights contained in the following instruments need to also be considered for inclusion in a South Australian human rights act:

the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples;

the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child and Optional Protocol to the Convention Against Torture;

the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities; and

the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women.

The evidence received by the committee suggests the benefits of a human rights act for South Australia will provide for:

greater citizen participation in government decision-making;

improved law-making processes; and

improved government decision-making and the administering of law.

It will:

address inequalities and discrimination in people's access to fundamental services;

improve the public's understanding of their rights and what to expect from public authorities;

reduce inefficiencies and waste in government;

improve existing legislation and legal rights; and

provide a remedy or cause of action when a person's human rights are breached.

Many submissions wish to see implementation of an accessible, affordable, timely and effective complaints process provided through a dedicated human rights commissioner, with a complaints conciliation, advisory and education mandate.

The inquiry explored what type of model a human rights act for South Australia would be appropriate, with submissions largely agreeing that a dialogue model will preserve parliamentary sovereignty, while also requiring this parliament, along with public authorities and the judiciary, to give consideration to how legislation or policy will impact human rights. By applying a human rights lens to the early stages of policy and legislation development before implementation and during administering of subsequent law, breaches of rights can be avoided.

Submissions gave advice that a standalone parliamentary scrutiny committee, such as a joint human rights scrutiny standing committee, to examine all bills and subordinate legislation will be the best way to manage compliance in lawmaking. Compliance will also be supported through the judiciary, with the Supreme Court able to issue statements of incompatibility where it is found that a law is inconsistent with human rights. The courts would not have the ability to change those laws but make submissions to the Attorney-General on their findings.

Submissions contend that, by requiring the public sector and other public authorities to act with human rights in mind, better decision-making will improve customer service and avoid costly remedy and cost blowouts within government departments. Education of the public as well as the administrative arm of government will empower South Australian citizens.

A human rights act for South Australia has the ability to provide many benefits to our society and our communities. The committee notes the commonwealth recently inquired into the potential for a federal human rights act, with the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights reporting in May 2024, with a recommendation that the commonwealth government establish an Australian human rights act. The committee has made three recommendations to the government of South Australia, including that there should be a human rights act for South Australia. I commend the committee's report to the house.

Motion carried.