Parliamentary Committees

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

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER (16:00): I move:

That the final report of the committee for the inquiry into the potential for a human rights act for South Australia be noted.

The terms of reference for this important inquiry were referred to the Social Development Committee by its own motion on 30 October 2023. The committee thanks all those who submitted evidence to the inquiry. A full list of submitters and witnesses is contained in the report. That said, the committee particularly wishes to thank the following individuals and organisations for their significant contributions to the area of human rights and for the time that they have given in preparing very high-quality submissions to the committee.

We are grateful to Associate Professor Sarah Moulds and the Rights Resource Network; Professor Matthew Stubbs; the Guardian for Children and Young People; 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 its secretariat staff, Ms Robyn Schutte and Ms Mary-Ann Bloomfield, for their work on the inquiry.

The committee advertised for submissions to the inquiry through metropolitan and regional print media, and it was promoted through the South Australian parliament website and the SA parliament Facebook page. A media release was distributed on 8 December 2023 in time for International Human Rights Day on 10 December 2023. 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. Of these, 58 were from individuals; five were jointly authored submissions from individuals; 72 were received from non-government organisations, associations, legal and advocacy groups; seven were received from university departments; and nine were received from government, local government and statutory office holders. The remaining 174 submissions were received through an online proforma.

The committee held 12 hearings of oral evidence at Parliament House. 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. Only four submissions were against a human rights act for South Australia. One hundred and eighty-eight submissions were noncommittal, as they were neither specifically opposed nor supportive of a human rights act for South Australia.

Members may be aware—I hope they are—that we in South Australia have a very proud history of progressive social reform. Not everyone has agreed with the advances but, in terms of parliament at least, majorities in both chambers have agreed to put forward this social reform. Over the years it has been applauded as such, not only here but around the country and internationally. We have often led the charge for changes, since at least the 1960s.

Indeed, there have been many 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 not benefited from being updated significantly for at least four or five decades. We are now considered, in Australia at least, as being at the back of the pack.

Some of the submissions received by the committee show 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. Though it was remarkable for its time, it was over 40 years ago. The committee received evidence that, with few or no legislated protections to remedy human rights breaches, there will continue to be inadequate justice for some complainants.

The committee was informed that South Australia has not kept up, as I said earlier, with several of the other states and territories, namely, Victoria, the Australian Capital Territory and Queensland, nor have we kept pace with many OECD countries and advanced democracies that we like to compare ourselves to in the progression of human rights and the modernisation of our discrimination law.

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

The inquiry looked at various types of models for a human rights act from both Australia's jurisdictions and also internationally. It would be probably advisable to consider a model based on the 'dialogue model', a phrase used to describe a model of human rights legislation which preserves parliamentary sovereignty but also requires that parliament, along with public authorities and the judiciary, give consideration to how legislation or policy impacts the human rights of its citizens. By applying a human rights lens at the early stages of policy development and the legislation development, before the implementation and during administering of subsequent law, breaches of rights can be avoided.

It has been commented on by many witnesses that, whilst we have a number of pieces of legislation to protect human rights and individual rights in a number of disparate circumstances, they are spread across numerous pieces of legislation. It is very hard to keep track of them and how they interact with each other. Indeed, some of them cross over and contradict each other in a couple of specific cases.

The committee considered the expert advice received and decided to report to the parliament with a unanimous recommendation that the South Australian parliament and government consider adopting a human rights act for South Australia, albeit one that would only happen subsequent to the government of the day launching a public inquiry to bring the public along with the parliament in terms of discussing a human rights act, how it would be composed, how it would work and what rights should be incorporated into such an act.

We could draw upon the experience of Queensland, the ACT and Victoria, which have had such legislation in place in some instances for over a decade. The evidence received from those jurisdictions was that it has indeed helped the Public Service, at least, in being able to deliver services to the community in a way which at least looks at the impact of human rights and how the legislation might override or compromise human rights in some instances but for the greater good of society—for instance, in terms of the COVID pandemic or any subsequent pandemic, how the greater good had to be overridden in some specific cases. The legislation was crafted in such a way that would allow that and makes that an obvious example of where the common good should take predominance.

A human rights act for South Australia has the ability to provide many of these benefits to our society and our communities. The committee notes that the commonwealth has recently inquired into the potential for a 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 as well.

I hope the report is read by members of this chamber. I hope it is read by the government and senior members of the Public Service, because I think sooner or later we will need to revisit some of the very important pieces of legislation that this state embarked on in the seventies and eighties and decide that it is a time when we should update those very important pieces of legislation and protect our citizens' human rights in South Australia.

Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. D.G.E. Hood.