Hopes that the Rudd government would bring Australia into line with the rest of the civilised world were dashed today when the Attorney General rejected the recommendations of the Brennan Inquiry to implement legislation to protect human rights in Australia.

This should not come as a surprise to anyone who has followed the performance to date of the Rudd government. It is periliously close to usurping the former governments crown as the most socially conservative Australia has endured since WW2.

Some immediate reactions to the Attorney Generals announcement below:

Liberty Victoria has expressed its dismay at the Federal Government’s rejection of key
human rights recommendations made last year by the Brennan committee. It has branded
the refusal to support a Human Rights Act, recommended by the committee, as cowardly
and as a further sign that the Government has set its face squarely against human rights.

“We are profoundly disappointed that the government has decided not to adopt a Human Rights Charter,” said Castan Centredirector Professor Sarah Joseph. “The powers of the Australian Human Rights Commission, except in the area of expanding its education role, have not been enhanced. It also seems that a number of the committee’s other recommendations have been ignored.” Professor Joseph said it was strange that the government chose to establish the committee, only to reject its major recommendation.

Dr Helen Watchirs, ACT Human Rights and Discrimination Commissioner, today expressed her disappointment that the Commonwealth Government had ignored the major recommendation of the National Human Rights Consultation and decided not to proceed with a national Human Rights Act.

The Australian Human Rights Group (AHRG) is disappointed by the Rudd Government’s refusal to enact a national Human Rights Act. Although more human rights education and a new Parliamentary committee are small steps towards better protection of human rights, these moves are wholly inadequate without a federal Human Rights Act.

The 2009 report on the operation of the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities,produced by the Victorian Equal Opportunity and Human Rights Commission for the Attorney-General, was tabled in Parliament today and shows that rights protection is a positive force in ensuring fairer laws and policies and improving the delivery of services in Victoria.

The Commission reports that the Charter has been used successfully by the community, legal advocates and government as a tool to help resolve challenging issues. Examples include the government’s move to extend disability assistance to people with Autism Spectrum Disorders, and the Bushfire Royal Commission’s decision to hear directly from victims about their experiences.

The report also calls for more to be done to ensure the consistent operation of the Charter across government departments, police and local councils.

A copy of the report and the Commission’s media release is available at humanrightscommission.vic.gov.au/charterreport

Writing in the Sydney Morning Herald on April 2, 2010, Richard Ackland reviews the Victorian Court of Appeal’s landmark ruling in the Momcilovic case that a piece of legislation removing the presumption of innocence is incompatible with that state’s Charter of Rights and Responsibilities.

He uses this ruling to debunk the core claim made by opponents of human rights acts or charters that such legislation would shift power from the parliament to the courts.

An elegant piece, well worth reading in full: just click here!

Writing in WA Today (19/3/10) former West Australian premier Geoff Gallop warned that without a national Human Rights Act, basic human rights are being progressively destroyed by “authoritarian” governments across Australia.

In his speech to the Human Rights Arts & Film Festival, Gallop argued that recent state laws had breached human rights. He claims that Australia lacks a consciousness that human rights are important, and that a charter would focus on this issue.

More in WA Today.com.au

Writing in The Australia (19/03/2010) Adam McBeth  exposes James Allens latest misprepresentations.

Read his full piece here in The Australian.

Writing in The Age on March 20, 2010 Ed Santow discusses the decision by the Victorian Court of Appeal that the trial of a suspected drug trafficker infringes Victoria’s Charter of Rights.

The court found that the drug law violated the presumption that a person is innocent until proven guilty
but accepted that this was the clear intention of this law, preserving the supremacy of Parliament, leaving it with it the final decision whether to amend the law or not.

Read the full op ed here in The Age

An opinion piece in the March 2010 edition of the Human Rights Law Resource Centre Bulletin, written by Centre Director Phil Lynch and a Senior Lawyer with the Centre, Emily Howie.

In it they explore the unique opportunity the Rudd government now has to promote the advancement of business and human rights at the international level. More:

In this same issue, Phil Lynch also takes on opponents of a Human Rights Act or Charter for Australia, exposing some of the false claims being made by assorted critics and arguing that political leadership on an already popular Human Rights Act would unite us through legal protection and institutional strengthening of those Australian democratic values we hold in common. More:

In March 2010 Bulletin there is also an interesting update on the UK human rights debate by Anita Coles, a Policy Officer at Liberty, one of the UK’s leading civil liberties and human rights organisations.

As part of its current Common Values campaign, which seeks to dispel the myths around the HRA and broaden understanding and promote the importance of human rights in the UK, Liberty has recently published a booklet written by two leading UK conservatives: Churchill’s Legacy: The Conservative Case for the Human Rights Act. Perhaps some of Australias conservative politicians should take a look!

Recent comments in the media that the proposed human rights bill is “dead in the water” represent nothing more than unhelpful and self-serving speculation, according to director of the Human Rights Law Resource Centre Philip Lynch.

Speaking to Lawyers Weekly today, Lynch slammed recent commentary on the state of the proposed bill, which referred to it as having virtually no public or cabinet support, and labeled such ideas as “misinformed and premature”.

Read the full post by Claire Chaffey here.

Writing in the Sydney Morning Herald (19/02/10) Richard Ackland suggests that “Reports of the death of a proposed bill or charter of rights may, as Mark Twain said of his own demise, be an exaggeration”. Hopefully he is correct in this assessment.

Mr Ackland also reviews the proposal for a parliamentary committee to vet legislation, one being pushed by some opponents as an alternative to a human rights bill or charter. Examining the track record of such processes in other jurisdictions he vividly demonstrates that this is not effective.  More:

Adam Schwab comments in Crikey of 25 February, 2010 on media reports that the Attorney Generals proposal for Australia to adopt a human rights act has been widely opposed in cabinet.Covering the same story in todays SMH,  Philip Coorey writes that while no final decison has been made there is little prospect of an act being adopted.

The apparent reason for this oppostion is the specious argument that such an act would shift power from the executive to the judiciary; the line being peddled by former conservative politicians like John Howard and Bob Carr.

Amazing that this is not an issue elsewhere in the world!  Looks like Australia will remain the only democratic country in the world that doesn’t have full legal protection for what is right and fair.

Refer also to another relevant piece in todays Crikey by Mark Blumer, president of the Australian Lawyers Alliance: “Abbott’s Muslim comment shows the need for a Human Rights Act”.

Writing in Crikey (February 11, 2010) Mark Blumer, President of the Australian Lawyers Alliance laments the “emotional, fear-mongering and ill-informed comments” which too often characterise opposition to an Australian human rights charter.

Read his full response to the most recent such attack, published in The Australian, from a researcher from the right wing think-tank CIS (Centre for Independent Studies).