Government fails to implement a Human Rights Act
The Australian Government is displaying a profound lack of courage and is completely ignoring the findings of its own extensive public consultation process by failing to implement a Human Rights Act, said Amnesty International today.
The Government’s refusal to implement legislation to formally safeguard the rights and freedoms of all Australians follows an elaborate and costly seven-month nationwide public consultation, instigated by Attorney-General Robert McClelland. That process concluded with a recommendation that the Federal Government adopt a Human Rights Act.
While the education programs and increased parliamentary scrutiny of legislation in relation to human rights standards announced by the Attorney-General in Canberra today are important, Amnesty International believes such moves are inadequate.
“Abandoning a Human Rights Act shows a real lack of courage on the part of the Australian Government and leaves this country as the only liberal democracy in the world without national human rights protection,” said Amnesty International Australia Campaign Coordinator Sophie Peer.
“We need an Act that entrenches our international human rights obligations and formally sets out ways of dealing effectively with breaches of these human rights standards.”
Of the 35,014 people who made submissions to the National Human Rights Consultation Committee, an overwhelming 29,153 were in favour of a Human Rights Act.
A 2009 opinion poll commissioned by Amnesty International found that 81 per cent of people surveyed would support the introduction of a law to protect human rights in Australia. In addition, the Nielsen survey results showed 85 per cent of those who supported the introduction of human rights legislation believed its introduction should be a high or very high priority for the Australian Government.
“This is an issue of public accountability. The findings of the costly taxpayer-funded inquiry are absolutely clear. Why hold a lengthy public consultation to then simply disregard its findings?” said Sophie Peer.
“And as a litany of previous and current laws and policies have proved, if human rights aren't formally protected, they’re at real risk of being eroded.”
At present, Australia does not fully incorporate its international treaty obligations into domestic law and Amnesty International believes that the Federal Constitution, statute law and common law do not sufficiently uphold, protect and promote human rights in this country.
“Maintaining the status quo in relation to human rights legislation essentially leaves Australia in breach of its international treaty obligations,” said Sophie Peer.
“Given all the public and expert consultation undertaken, and given there is functioning human rights legislation in Victoria, the ACT and internationally, this decision is deeply frustrating.”
“What we have witnessed today is a missed opportunity of historic proportions for the Government to show vision and commit to strong, uniform human rights protection for all Australians.”
Comments
Michael Wild | Posted on 29 April 2010, 12:46AM | Report comment
Hi Sophie+James and other activists. On reflection I wish I had not used the terms “shame” and “folly”. I don’t have a problem with HOW the Human Rights Act campaign was done. My issue is the decision to attempt it. I believe the probability of failure near certain and predictably so. Unlike other campaigns there were no likely fringe benefits if the key objective failed. Sadly we’ve just given politicians and key opinion makers practice in ignoring us. If AIA is going to do this sort of campaign it should perhaps consider getting some political advisers. Some pollies and journoes live for politics and love to talk about it. Some could be persuaded to advise us for little to nothing. What is required is the ability to think tactically regardless of what the pollie or journalist would like to happen. I suggest the decision to go for a HRA was the triumph of optimism over political reality and the fact that most of us hang out with like minded colleagues.
Geoff Allshorn | Posted on 26 April 2010, 12:33AM | Report comment
The government’s failure to implement a Bill of Rights should be a source of shame for every Australian of good conscience.
Michael Wild | Posted on 23 April 2010, 10:48PM | Report comment
Sophie+James: The reference to shame was about folly not moral character. When a general orders troops to attack a superior force on bad terrain we blame the general not the troops for failure. I’d say you were good troops but naïve generals. Your belief we had a “reasonable” chance suggests you confuse like minded friends and activists as guides to national opinion. You can’t sway politicians doing that (the only people who really counted here). I follow politics closely and saw every professional pundit say it wouldn’t get up. THIS INCLUDED ALL LEFT WING COMMENTATORS. The other professionals (cabinet) killed it because they thought it was bad politics not bad policy. I’m reminded of fans betting their team coming 14th will beat team coming 3rd because they want it to be true. In this case we didn’t gamble with small change but $10 000s and 100s of working hours. Is it too much to expect those responsible to admit their mistake and try not to repeat it?
Bruce Horwood | Posted on 23 April 2010, 08:13PM | Report comment
Sophie & James,
thank you for your courteous replies, which pointed to data regarding the issue I raised (that of an actual link between the ends and means in issue) rather than personal remarks.
I will endeavour to keep an open mind on this issue.
Just as background, I once had the privilege of helping a lady who was harassed at work and who was disabled. Because no link between the harassment and the disability could be shown, the harasser got off under the legislation the victim had first brought action under.
The drafters of this human rights legislation appeared to have believed, naively, that if they catalogued every form of prejudice then they could cover all harassment, not realising that evil people are not necessarily politically incorrect types who need a prejudice as an excuse.
I am in favour of simple legislation, that does not make too many assumptions!
Thank you again.
Sophie | Posted on 23 April 2010, 11:17AM | Report comment
oops. sorry Bruce and James, I was commenting at the same time and now disrupted the thread with my last post. To the issue of law or not to law. Yes, we must law - what is human rights education without recourse, what is increased scrutiny without oversight. Experiences in UK, ACT, Victoria and all across the world show us that an Act does not require costly, lengthy legal battles. Tribunals and provide decision making, Departmental heads consider human rights in policy making and more often than not - those whose rights are breached are not those able to engage in legal fees anyway.
Sophie | Posted on 23 April 2010, 11:04AM | Report comment
Hi, I am Amnesty International Australia’s Campaign Coordinator on ‘Human Rights Act for Australia’. I am extremely proud of the work we and the broader coalition of the AHRG (Australian Human Rights Group) have done to call for an Act in this country. I strongly believe I was not working for a pipe dream. My belief for this campaign was strengthed by knowing it was strategic, through Canberra meetings (advisors etc), being part of a coalition, talking to the public and hearing from those whose human rights have been breached right here in Australia. This Government could have introduced a Human Rights Act, this was a realistic campaign goal. AI is underpinned by the UDHR - calling our own Government to respect and legally entrench the UDHR and all other international human rights obligations they have undertaken seems to me to be the core work of Amnesty. This country requires a Human Rights Act.
James Fehon | Posted on 23 April 2010, 11:03AM | Report comment
Hey Bruce,
Highly paid people interpret our laws but the fear that a charter of rights would in any way increase this simply hasn’t been the experience in Victoria, the ACT, the UK or Canada when they’ve introduced rights protection in recent years.
I’m not sure the quote about prohibitions is all that applicable either – a Human Rights Act or charter isn’t about making prohibitions, it’s about consolidating and enshrining existing rights we all hold and providing them legal protection. I’d hope we don’t commit worse abuses as a society just through legally protecting rights.
There’s many examples of the positive impact this type of legislation has had when introduced in Victoria, the ACT & the UK – a quick search brought up this overview http://www.amnesty.org.au/yourhumanrights/comments/20134/ & the two it links to which I really encourage you to read.
Bruce Horwood | Posted on 23 April 2010, 10:38AM | Report comment
As a non-AI member, and someone who Michael Wild would consider a reactionary, I would like to raise a few comments/questions.
Is it possible that at least some people who would oppose human rights legislation would be in favour of human rights? Is not one a means, and the other an end?
If a clear relationship between the means of human rights legislation and the end of human rights outcomes could be established, then it would be more relevant that Australia is the only liberal democracy without human rights legislation. Unless that link is thoroughly understood, the serious step of legislating should not be taken.
The issue of the relationship between law and culture is not straightforward. The requirement of law to be predicable makes it complex but still limited. Human rights legislation may only lead to more highly paid people arguing about the definitions of words.
A Lao Tzu said: “The more prohibitions you have, the less virtuous people will be.”
James Fehon | Posted on 23 April 2010, 12:14AM | Report comment
The National Consultation presented the best chance we’ve ever had as a nation for catching up with the rest of the liberal democracies of the world.
Public support was overwhelmingly behind a Human Rights Act. AIA & other organisations mobilised over 29,000 people in the largest public consultation ever. I’m really surprised you think anyone contributing to achieving adequate human rights protection for the most vulnerable in our society should be told they should be ashamed. Please consider comments a little further before posting things like that.
If you hold strong views on the priorities of campaigns, get involved in the planning stage, don’t go criticising the organisations / movements after the fact … how does that further the human rights cause - in my view its divisive, a strategic blunder in and of itself.
The announcement is a set back & major disappointment, but by no means should it mark the end of working towards securing a human rights act for Australia.
Michael Wild | Posted on 22 April 2010, 09:55PM | Report comment
Hi James. The “left wing pipe dream” was not in the value of Human Rights Acts but the fantasy we had a chance of getting one up in Australia. I’m fairly sure that’s clear in my earlier post. AIA didn’t just “support” a HRA. It made a major campaign over a number of years, comparable to the China Campaign. The China Campaign got some releases and set a climate where the tyrants may choose to release some prisoners the next time it wants a good will gesture. The HRA campaign was only worth doing if we had a reasonable chance of getting one. We didn’t. The success we seek on refugees will come by campaigning for them directly. Resources spent on the HRA long shot hasn’t helped but has weakened our movement. I don’t know if you had a role in sending us on this ill considered campaign. If you did you should feel shame rather than anger. Political passion is all very well but the cause for Human Rights is not helped by strategic blunders and misallocating resources.
James | Posted on 22 April 2010, 01:41PM | Report comment
Michael, having been a dedicated Amnesty activist and group convenor for a long time, it’s a surprise to hear you propose that the organisation shouldn’t support something because it has a “bleak life expectancy”. Your suggestion that such legislation would be ineffective in the face of strong political will (ie Tampa or intervention) echoes arguments our opponents sometimes put forward against tactics such as letter writing. But we know that writing letters is in fact an effective form of political pressure, and in that vein I think we’d find that a Human Rights Act would be anything other than a “foolish waste of time”.
James Fehon | Posted on 22 April 2010, 01:29AM | Report comment
Left wing pipe dream?
Every single other liberal democracy has some sort of legislated rights protection … Hardly a pipe dream.
A Human Rights Act under the dialogue model would’ve added one element we don’t have amongst the spin, a statement of incompatibility from the courts outlining how the legislation impedes on Human Rights. If a government wants to violate them then its even clearer to the general public that its consciously going against a legal principal that’s meant to be universal.
Works in Victoria & the ACT, works in other liberal democracies with that model.
Anything can be spun by the political machine – the idea that we shouldn’t fight for human rights protection because we won’t have easy victories is absurd. I for one won’t be told to stay silent – there’s too much lost by doing so.
Michael Wild | Posted on 22 April 2010, 01:04AM | Report comment
I’d have liked a Bill of Rights and did campaign for it. But while a Human Rights Act was a cute duck, it was always a very lame duck with a bleak life expectancy. AIA’s decision to buy said duck was silly and sentimental. This ought to have been obvious to anyone with a bit of political nous. Most voters were never going to get enthused and any Act was going to be a sitting duck to the very predictable conservative scare campaign. Furthermore a (probably heavily watered down) Act could easily have been swept aside by a hostile government in pursuit of votes. Does anyone believe a HR Act would have stopped Tampa or the NT intervention? All in all a foolish waste of time and resources and we’re lucky it’s been clearly killed so we can move onto campaigns that might work The real issue is will we learn from this blunder? In particular, will those responsible, take responsibility and be more cautious (or even better silent) when the next left wing pipe dream comes along?
James Fehon | Posted on 21 April 2010, 03:19PM | Report comment
What a major failure of policy … and Robert McLelland’s rational “it would be too divisive”. With 80% support it’s hard to take that as a serious reason. We all know there was some influential opposition but I’d hoped for more from this Government.
I think Sophie’s spot on there, it is certainly “a missed opportunity of historic proportions” - the direction for human rights protection this Government is taking is certainly worrying.