Opponents of a Human Rights Act are worried about the Consultation Committee’s clear recommendation that our Government adopt one. They’ve presented various inaccuracies - or ‘myths’ - in popular media about what an Act would mean for our country.

Myths don’t help anyone get a handle on an issue - let’s bust them with the facts!

Myth 1 - "Australians don’t want a Human Rights Act"

Fact 1 - There is strong, widespread public support for a Human Rights Act

The National Human Rights Consultation of 2009 was one of the biggest public consultations in Australia’s history. Through the process, the Consultation Committee:

  • Received 35,014 individual submissions from Australians from all walks of life regarding human rights protection in Australia - plumbers, nurses, church ministers, accountants, medical practitioners, builders, job seekers, students and pensioners all made submissions through Amnesty International.
  • Conducted over 65 community roundtables in 52 locations - from metropolitan to regional, rural and remote - throughout Australia’s eight states and territories.
  • Met with parliamentarians, senior public servants, judges and representatives of non-governmental organisations.
  • Held public hearings involving community group representatives and key public figures and commentators over three days in the nation’s capital.

From this extensive consultation, the Committee concluded that there is clear widespread support for a Human Rights Act in Australia.

Furthermore, a Nielsen 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.

Myth 2 - "A Human Rights Act would transfer power from elected politicians to judges"

Fact 2 - A Human Rights Act will preserve parliamentary sovereignty

The Human Rights Consultation Committee recommended a Human Rights Act based on a ‘dialogue’ model, which would ensure that parliament has the ‘final say’.

In this model:

  • Courts must interpret legislation consistently with parliament’s purpose in enacting the legislation.
  • Courts would not have the power to invalidate legislation. Where legislation is found to be incompatible with human rights, only the High Court would have the power to issue a declaration of incompatibility. The declaration would not invalidate the legislation, but would require the parliament to re-examine the legislation and provide a response within a certain period of time.

A Human Rights Act, like any other Act of Parliament, would be drafted and passed by the democratically-elected members of parliament, implemented by the executive and applied by the judiciary.

Myth 3 - "A Human Rights Act will violate religious freedom"

Fact 3 - A Human Rights Act will protect religious freedom

Freedom of religion is a fundamental human right. So are freedom of expression, freedom of speech and freedom of association - all necessary for the meaningful enjoyment of religious freedom. All these freedoms will be strengthened, not restricted, under a Human Rights Act.

The committee’s Human Rights Act model protects "the right to freedom of thought, conscience and belief" as well as "freedom to manifest one’s religion or beliefs". It also ensures that where religious freedom conflicts with another human right (such as the right to equality), parliament (not judges), will have the task of striking the appropriate balance.

We trust that you’re convinced now

Please get behind our call and help us make sure we get the Human Rights Act we all called for.