In his Opinion Piece “Judges have their place” of December 27,2008 , Mike Steketee, National affairs editor of the Australian, concludes by saying that whether or not Australia ends up with human rights charter, the protection of rights in our present system has become too centralised and unbalanced needs improvement. “It’s what we call in Australia giving people a fair go”.

Read this excellent article in full in The Australian.

The report, “The National Human Rights Consultation: Engaging in the Debate”, begins by outlining the arguments for and against a Federal Charter of Rights (or Human Rights Act). The report then addresses the central issues in the debate by discussing three broad questions:

• Is a Federal Charter necessary?
• What would a Federal Charter do?
• How would a Federal Charter work? 

You can access the full report on the HRLRC website. 

Critics of a charter of rights misrepresent the nature of our political system, writes John Warhurst in Australian Policy Online. 

REASON rarely prevails when a public debate generates more heat than light. The bill of rights debate is a case in point, with a prominent critic like Paul Kelly even claiming that the proposal threatens the very fabric of our democracy. Such exaggerated language serves no purpose other than a pre-emptive strike; that is, to prevent a reasonable discussion in which the strengths and weaknesses of a proposal can be weighed.

Some negative reactions to the public consultation, to be chaired by the Jesuit priest Father Frank Brennan, about a possible federal bill of rights misrepresent how Australia’s parliamentary democracy actually works in practice. The critics are deliberately hyping up their language in order to derail debate before it even begins.

Framing - that is, setting the terms of debate - is crucial in politics. The bill of rights debate is often framed by its critics as being about a sovereign, elected parliament protecting the common law tradition versus the non-elected lawyer-dominated courts advocating a bill of rights. If it is framed in that way it is a no contest. The debate is as good as over. The sovereign, elected parliament must win every time because the debate becomes a struggle between good and evil.

But our system is not about parliament versus the courts. It is about parliament and the courts working together in tandem.

 Read the full article in Australian Policy Online.

Speaking today at the United Nations Association of Australia Conference celebrating the 60th Anniversary of the Signing of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the Attorney General, The Hon Robert McClelland MP, launched the National Human Rights Consultation. More:

For more details refer to new National Human Rights Consultation website.

The announcement by the Attorney General generated extensive, generally positive coverage in the national media. A selection of this commentary can be accessed through the following links:

A charter would “make lawmakers more thoughtful” and Australia should have an Equality Act “to give all individuals a fair go” (Catherine Branson, The Australian Dec 15) 

 “It’s time Australia set matters to rights” (Dec. 11 Editorial in The Age)

Maintaining the UN’s gold standard (Frank Brennan - EurekaStreet.Com.au)

“Responsibility writ large” (Lena Bell, Business Spectator)

“Priest to head panel on bill of rights” (Michelle Grattan, The Age)

Does Australia need a Bill of Rights? (ABC Radio, transcript of interview with Julian Burnside)

 ‘What Australia needs for Christmas is a Charter of Human Rights’ (Catherine Branson, SMH)

Gordon Brown strongly defends Human Rights Act (The Herald)

“Fence-sitter’ heads charter team” (Cynthia Banham, SMH)

Human rights improving, but more needed: Robertson (Geoffrey Robertson, The West Australian)

“Kevin Rudd’s bill of rights sceptic Frank Brennan to avoid villains’ charter “(Maley and Franklin, The Aus)

“Australia has a Role to Play in Promoting Justice “(Phil Lynch, Rachel Ball, The Age - related to Aus’s HRs role in Asia-Pacific) 

Workplace laws and human rights. (Sharan Burrow ABC)

Writing in the Sydney Morning Herald on December 5, 2008 Richard Ackland reflects on the federal Attorney-Generals anticipated announcement of nationwide consultations on the formulation of an Australian charter of rights and then proceeds to debunk several of the arguments being advanced against such a charter by its opponents. Read the full article: 

Kep Enderby, former member of federal parliament, Gough Whitlam’s last attorney- general and a retired NSW Supreme Court judge writes to express his concern at the lack of balance and outright error in the Australians editorial “Charter of wrongs” of December 4, 2008.

Also featured in todays letters page of The Australian are letters by Spencer Zifcak and George Newhouse. More:

‘Who’s afraid of Human Rights?’ is the title of Julian Burnside gave to the 28th Sir Richard Kirby Lecture he delivered at Wollongong University, 25 September 2008.

Sir Richard Kirby was the first president of the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Commission and, in his introduction, Julian drew together the two strands-industrial relations and human rights.

Industrial relations has wage justice as a central concern, at least until Work Choices; wage justice is a necessary element of social justice; social justice is not possible in a community which does not respect human rights. Securing wage justice and protecting human rights will always depend on the rule of law, because they will always be opposed by powerful interests-whether powerful in wealth or powerful in numbers.

His direct connection with industrial, he said, is slight-just one or two cases, but one of them mattered quite a lot and it had a powerful effect on him. This, of course, was MUA v Patrick Stevedores. (more…)

A new report, published by the British Institute of Human Rights to mark ten years of the UK Human Rights Act and 60 years of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, demonstrates that the HRA is protecting vulnerable people from abuse and poor treatment in public services.

The report highlights examples where the HRA helps protect people from brutality, and unnecessary intrusion of their privacy, and promotes people’s inherent human dignity and participation in life.

The report shows that the HRA is an invaluable tool for public service staff, service users and their advocates, enabling people to challenge poor treatment without having to go to court, because it requires public services to consider people’s basic human rights in their everyday work, and respond to individual needs. More:

While national leadership fails, the states and territories are forging ahead, leading us to a situation where various governments of the federated provinces recognise and guarantee the human rights of their citizens, but the government of the federated nation does not.

Simon Rice, Director of Law Reform and Social Justice at the ANU College of Law, takes federal governments to task for faiiling to act decisely on human rights protection.

Read his full opinion piece in the December 2008 Bulletin No 32 of the HRLRC.

What I would like to see is a new approach to making law and policy that doesn’t ignore the human rights picture. I would like to see the legislature focus on solving existing human rights problems and preventing human rights problems from happening in the future.

Read the full opinion piece by John von Doussa QC, former President of the Australian Human Rights Commission, in the December 2008 Bulletin No 32 of the Human Rights Law Resource Centre (HRLRC) .

A speech delivered to the Australian Institute of Administrative Law (Victorian Chapter) on 20 November 2008 by The Hon Kevin Bell, Justice, Supreme Court of Victoria, President, Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal.

In this speech Justice Bell concludes that it can be strongly argued the the Victorian Charter of Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006 has significantly enhanced Victorian democracy and that it can be just as strongly be argued that Australian democracy would equally be enhanced with a federal charter.  Read the full speech:

In contrast to his predecessor, who seemed to have gone cold on this issue, the new Premier has indicated that he is interested in resuming the debate. The following extract is from a speech given today by Tasmanian Premier David Bartlett about developments on a state bill:

“…I think an important part of connecting communities through social inclusion is making sure that people have a clear understanding of their rights and responsibilities as members of the Tasmanian community.

That is why I can flag today that I am interested in looking further at a Bill of Rights for Tasmania.

I have asked Deputy Premier and Attorney General, Lara Giddings, to bring forward recommendations to Cabinet about the need for a Bill of Rights, and its potential content.

Setting down rights on paper is about empowering people.

It gives us the chance as a community to set out some of the political freedoms and social rights that all Tasmanians should have.

And social empowerment in turn builds a sense of community.

It also gives us the opportunity to once again lead the nation with a socially progressive agenda, as we have done over the past decade with our significant relationships legislation, our family violence prevention policy, and our provision of compensation to the Stolen Generations…”

For the full speech go to: