Human Rights Act 2004
[2] This proposal embodied a community wide deliberation, designed to assess public sentiment toward Human Rights within the ACT.
Firstly, the Act maintains that family should be afforded protection within the community because it's the ‘’natural and basic group unit of society’’.
Secondly, no individual can be pressurised into narrowing their freedom to maintain or express their faith through ‘’worship, observance, practice or teaching’’.
[31] Thirdly, the previously described rights are subject to actualisation without discrimination and compliance with a parent or guardians religious and/or moral obligations, so long as, these convictions adhere to the minimal standards enacted by law.
[32] The Human Rights Act of 2004 has provided the basis for numerous judicial rulings within the Australian court system.
The following section outlines courts cases where the Human Rights Act of 2004 influenced judicial rulings.
[40] For this trial, Kalachoff applied to the Legal Aid Commission (A.C.T) in order to acquire remuneration for the presiding counsel.
[45] In making these points Justice Burns explained, that these rights should not be conflated into a compelled "hybrid guarantee" of funding for a defendant's chosen legal defence.
[53] In addressing common law, Justice Refshauge moved to examine the parameters under the Human Rights Act 2004.
[55] Section 22 outlines that an individual "charged with a criminal offence" holds the right to a trail unencumbered by excessive postponement.
Jon Stanhope who served on council for A.C.T civil liberties as the president points out, that the Human Rights Act is ‘’one of the most important pieces of legislation’’ passed in Australia.
[60] Nevertheless, Stanhope acknowledges that ‘’the act is not an end in itself’’ but will be used to encourage norms and customs that respect Human Rights.
Watchirs and McKinnon describe the moderate influence of the Human Rights Act within the judicial system.
The duo comment, that a ‘’great many cases’’ have been adjudicated without careful analysis and scrutiny of raised provisions pertaining to the Human Rights Act.
[64] Conversely, Michael Walton a senior lecture of Public Policy at Harvard Kennedy school stated,[65] that this piece of legislation provides an honest accounting of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
[67] Additionally, George Williams a Scientia Professor at the University of New South Wales[68] and Lara Kostakidis-Lianos a member of the University of New South Wales law journal[69] wrote about the connection between the Human Rights Act and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
[71] By utilising this knowledge to iteratively refine itself, this legislation may be Australia's greatest tool to protect rights and responsibilities despite concerns of opaque terminology.
[72] Jim McGinty a retired Attorney-General of Western Australia continues by describing the legislation as ‘’ground-breaking’’ and providing an ‘’express list’’ of civil and political protections.
[73] McGinty comments, that unlike previous protections, the Human Rights Act establishes a connection between the individual and the government; without this partnership, the rights enshrined in the Act may become brittle, similar to analogous protections afforded within other legislative accounts.
[76] Notice to Attorney-General and Commission The following amendment specifies who the Supreme Court should communicate with, in the event, a case is heard that relates to an individual exercising a Human Right.
