Opinion Piece to the Herald Sun - The Victorian Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities

01/05/2008

Mirko Bagaric’s scaremongering about a bill of rights is clearly without basis if we look at the experience in Victoria.

Afterall, we have had the Charter of Human Rights operating in Victoria since January and are yet to see any evidence that judges have taken over making decisions about ‘core moral issues’. This is not surprising given that under the Charter, Parliament retains the final say on important matters of legislation and policy, not the courts.

Sure, a judge may say that a law is inconsistent with human rights, but it is still up to Parliament to decide whether the law should be changed. Parliament will always have the final say. Indeed, it would be very unusual for any Government to hand over its law-making power to the bench.

The so-called debate about the role of the courts in relation to human rights laws distracts us from the broader aims of the Charter which is to ensure we live in a society that embraces human rights.

Under the Charter State Government Departments, local governments and public authorities must consider our human rights when they deliver services, draft legislation and make decisions. These rights include: freedom of expression; protection from torture and cruel, inhumane or degrading treatment; the right to liberty and security; and the right to privacy and reputation.

This ‘filter’ approach operates in much the same way as the environmental impact assessment that is required of new legislation to ensure no unreasonable degradation of the natural environment is brought about because of government decisions and policy.

How can we be opposed to our government similarly applying a human rights filter to ensure no unreasonable degradation of our human rights? The Charter takes no decisions away from the people of Victoria; in fact, it empowers the community by requiring the Government to ensure its decisions do not negatively impact on their civil and political rights.

It ensures government actions are more transparent and accountable.

Contrary to Bagaric’s claims, experience in other countries shows that when human rights are considered in this way, the community is more united and people can participate more fully and equally in society.

The fact is that the Charter operates in a low-key, almost invisible fashion. This is not such a revelation if we think about the routine transactions most of us have with government and the guiding hand of human rights on those: I have the right to equal recognition before the law and treatment by government irrespective of my race, age, or disability; I do not expect the government to monitor my telephone calls, or to defame my reputation, or to stop me meeting with my local community group or club. Low-key these examples may be but they are all linked to rights protected under the Charter.

Bagaric’s opposition to human rights laws is clearly out of step with the rest of the community when we take into account the 2500 written submissions which led to the development Victorian Charter and the current growing call for a national bill of rights.