The Brennan Report following the national consultation has set out a well considered and effective approach to improving human rights protection in Australia. The terms of this proposal are similar to the “New Matilda” model the HRAAC has advocated over the last four years.

• An act of parliament would list the major human rights based on Australia’s ratification of the key UN rights conventions and declarations.
• Parliament and the bureaucracy would have a clear and strong role in ensuring all legislation coming into the parliament had undergone consideration of these rights.
• A joint parliamentary committee would monitor and report on human rights matters. An alleged violation of rights could go to the High Court.
• The High Court could consider consistency with the human rights act. A finding of inconsistency by the court would go back to parliament. Parliament would consider what action, if any, to take. The court could not strike down or change legislation.
• Where parliament wished to exclude a law from coverage by the human rights act, that decision would be explicit.

(more…)

The Australian Human Rights Group is looking for an experienced, passionate and enthusiastic coordinator to provide executive support, research assistance and to be a central point of contact for our ongoing campaign for a Human Rights Act for Australia. Click here for details of the position

Please send expressions of interests to Simeon Beckett at s.beckett@mauricebyers.com (02 8233 0300) by 6 November 2009

Writing in todays Sydney Morning Herald, Professor George Williams rejects new arguments from opponents of human rights reform for Australia and reminds readers that the overwhelming majority of Australians have consistently called for increased human rights protection.

Read the full article in the October 21, 2009 edition of the SMH.

Writing in the Sydney Morning Herald today on the Brennan report, Jonathan Pearlman provides a reality check by pointing out that the recommendations are set to trigger lively debate within the Rudd cabinet and that approval is by no means assured.

He also reports on the predictably “bitter” opposition from coalition ranks and the equally misguided blusterings of former NSW premier Bob Carr.

Read the full article:

Greg Barnes, in Crikey today, reports that the core message of the Brennan Committee’s report to the Rudd government on human rights is that Australians want better human rights protection.

In a speech delivered today, Frank Brennan revealed how out of touch with community sentiment Australian opponents of a human rights law actually are.

The federal Attorney-General, Robert McClelland, praised the work of the committee but was non-committal regarding the key recommendation for a national Human Rights Act. As Greg Barnes says, the ball is now in his and Mr. Rudd’s court. If Labor rejects a national human rights law because they are scared off by conservatives, they will be denying the Australian people the chance to be treated with greater respect by their government.

In his Opinion piece in todays Sydney Morning Herald  Richard Ackland shares with readers  his “…glimmering insight that the Attorney-General has told people he ”expects” that the Brennan committee will not recommend that Australia have a human rights act along the lines of Victoria or the Australian Capital Territory…”

Richard Ackland goes on to say that …”the recommendation most likely to emerge is for an enhanced Senate or joint parliamentary committee to review legislation and determine whether it is inconsistent with a nominated list of rights and values”…

One can only hope and trust that Mr Ackland is off the mark this time !

Chief Justice Robert French has hit back at John Howard’s criticism of “unelected judges” being handed control of human rights under a bill of rights, arguing that the High Court has presided over a common law that has acted as a “repository” of freedoms.

Read the complete article in The Australian 

Writing in Crikey today, August 27, on John Howards attack on human rights legislation for Australia, Greg Barnes finds it extraordinary that the former PM should be given any credibility when it comes to criticising judicial protection of rights.

His government’s treatment of asylum seekers alone is testament to what happens when the parliament and not the courts are left to deal with human rights.

Greg Barnes contrasts Howards contribution with the recent speech by the former High Court Chief Justice Anthony Mason to the Human Rights Consultation in Canberra.

In the Sydney Morning Herald on August 21, 2009 Richard Ackland highlights two recent developments which he believes might provide some context to the present debate around an Australian charter or bill of rights.

One is last week’s NSW Law Reform Commission’s report recommending a law of privacy which followed a recent Australian Law Reform Commission report urging much the same thing.

The other is a decision of a federal appeals court in Canada applying its Charter of Rights and Freedoms to Omar Khadr, a young Canadian held without trial at Guantanamo Bay.

Mr Ackland believes both developments bolster the case for an Australian rights charter or bill.

Noel Towell, The Canberra Times, 20/8/09. Discusses a report compiled by Professor Hilary Charlesworth, Professor Andrew Byrnes and Gabrielle McKinnon which declared the ACT’s Human Rights Act “a win for human rights in the ACT”.

Read the full article:

The Politics of Human Rights in Australia offers clarity and insight into the complex issues surrounding the human rights debate in Australia. By Louise Chappell,University of Sydney, John Chesterman, University of Melbourne and Lisa Hill, University of Adelaide

Australia has traditionally lacked a strong ‘rights’ culture. While fairness and equality have been proudly exalted as trademarks of the national mindset, the authors of The Politics of Human Rights in Australia argue that these same characteristics may equate to a form of cultural complacency. 

Addressing the key debates surrounding human rights in Australia, the authors ask: Why are voting rights so critical in the Australian context? Should Australia adopt a bill of rights in an ‘age of terror’? What are Australia’s responsibilities to global and regional refugee crises? How can reconciliation between indigenous and non-indigenous Australians be facilitated?

The Age editorial of August 4, hopes that the Brennan inquiry will recommend adoption of a national charter of human rights. The writer expects that a correctly framed charter offers a standard against which to measure the compatibility of other statutes with basic rights.