Organisation urges consultation, as recommended in parliamentary committee report
The Law Society of South Australia called on SA’s government to act on the recommendations of a recently tabled unanimous report, including by launching a public consultation on a human rights framework for enacting human rights legislation in the state.
According to the Law Society’s media release, the state parliament’s social development committee recommended the following:
The parliamentary committee’s report covers possible features of the state law. The report sheds light on the planned legislation’s importance in requiring the legislative, executive, and judicial branches to address human rights when drafting, implementing, or interpreting laws and policies and ensuring South Australians can access affordable and effective remedies for human rights breaches.
The Law Society said the recently tabled report makes a strong case for state legislation focused on human rights.
“South Australians deserve to be secure in the knowledge that there is a mechanism that explicitly functions to protect their rights,” the organisation said in its media release.
The Law Society stressed that a South Australian Human Rights Act is long overdue and vital for protecting against any erosion of fundamental rights in the state. The organisation added that state legislation would be a practical tool for South Australians, not just an abstract document.
“A Human Rights Act in SA would entrench in law the human rights that South Australians collectively consider to be important by ensuring such rights are given due consideration when laws or decisions are made about their lives,” the Law Society said.
The Law Society noted that other jurisdictions have multiple cases illuminating how human rights legislation can help prevent breaches of rights.
“Examples include a domestic violence victim who was refused permission to home-school her child with a disability, a homeless family evicted from crisis accommodation without sufficient warning, and a man receiving involuntary mental health treatment without the treatment being reviewed,” the organisation said. “In these cases, decisions which would have had devastating effects on vulnerable people were overturned due to being incompatible with that jurisdiction’s human rights legislation.”
