Question

Number

152

Subject

Human rights
(Compatibility of Human Rights Act with ICCPR)

Asked by

Cain, Peter

Directed to

Minister for Human Rights

Question asked on

04 February 2025

Answer due on

09 March 2025

Question asked

Is the right of a person to seek and obtain an effective remedy for a claimed violation of human rights fundamental to the concept of human rights.
Does the ACT Government recognise that the inability to seek and obtain an effective remedy for a claimed violation of human rights renders the concept of human rights meaningless in the practical sense of their application.
Is the Human Rights Act 2004 (HRA) in accordance with the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), Article 4(2), which provides that the rights given under Articles 6, 7, 8(1-2), 11, 15, 16 and 18 of the ICCPR are non-derogable rights.
Does the HRA limit the right to seek remedy for violations of these rights under Articles 6, 7, 8(1-2), 11, 15, 16 and 18 of the ICCPR.
Are ACT residents entitled to less protection of their human rights than residents in international jurisdictions under the ICCPR.
What other means exists in the ACT for a person claiming violation of a non-derogable ICCPR right to have an effective remedy as required by Article 2(3) of the ICCPR due to the exclusion of courts from the definition of "public authority" under section 40(2)(b) of the HRA.
Is it still the case that the Statement of Compatibility with Human Rights made for the HRA that that legislation is compatible with Australia's and the ACT's human rights obligation, given that section 40(2)(b) of the HRA may be in violation of the ICCPR, Article 2(3).

Parliamentary business