Debate: Does Australia need a national charter of human rights?

16/03/2009

Will a national charter of rights provide better human rights protections for Australians, improve public service delivery and enhance recognition of human rights standards OR intrude on matters that should be left to parliament, create a flood of litigation and encourage judicial activism?

Debating the issues at the Victorian Equal Opportunity and Human Rights Commission’s conference on human rights are constitutional lawyer Professor Greg Craven vice-chancellor of the Australian Catholic University and sceptic when it comes to a national charter, and Michael Gorton AM, Chair of the Victorian Equal Opportunity and Human Rights Commission and a supporter of a Victorian-style national charter of human rights.

“This is not a question of whether or not human rights should be protected,” said Professor Craven. ”Everyone agrees that they should be, but the questions are: which rights and how should they be protected?”

Professor Craven believes that the complex social and political questions that make up rights should be left to the parliament as the democratically elected representatives of the people.

He believes that the protection of rights would be better served through parliamentary reform rather than a bill or charter of rights.

“Before we resort to a bill of rights we need to consider what could be done with toughened parliamentary committees, more sophisticated scrutiny procedures and an improved Senate,” said Professor Craven.

Mr Gorton agrees that a sophisticated scrutiny process in parliament is a necessary reform and believes that the Victorian charter demonstrates how a national charter could assist law-makers at a federal level.

“In Victoria, the parliament has recognised that certain rights, which basically ensure that people are treated with dignity and respect, are essential to community well-being. If the parliament is going to introduce a law, then a check is done to ensure that these rights are protected. If parliament wants to proceed with laws that diminish rights, it needs to clearly say so and justify the decision. This kind of scrutiny, in my view, enhances the decision-making of parliament.

Mr Gorton believes that current federal law-making processes are not adequately protecting human rights in Australia. “Famously, we have seen the detention and deportation of innocent people such as Vivien Alvarez Solon and Cornelia Rau and the mandatory detention of children. These are the serious consequences of laws that are passed without scrutiny for consideration of the impact on human rights.”

“This healthy debate is an important part of the public discussion about the protection of human rights,” said Dr Helen Szoke, CEO of the Victorian Equal Opportunity and Human Rights Commission.

“Community members need to inform themselves of the issues and have their say in the national human rights consultation which is now underway, said Dr Szoke.

The national Human Rights Consultation will hold public meetings in Melbourne and regional Victoria in mid-April. Submissions to the National Human Rights Consultation close June 15.

Dr Helen Szoke, Professor Greg Craven and Mr Michael Gorton are available for interview.

Media contact Janeen Lynch 0419 33 77 34