Ryan: Human Rights Law - Its potential role in the citizenship debate.

In a presentation to the Manning Clarke House seventh annual weekend of ideas Susan Ryan offered the view that an Australian Bill or Charter of Human Rights would provide a powerful basis for educating all Australians about the rights and obligations of citizenship.

Citizenship for those born in this country is inevitable, automatic. It is not something we choose. Unlike other important aspects of life, we can be a citizen without knowing anything about it. In contrast, membership of a political party, a religion, or a football club involves some awareness and choice. This inevitability applies of course only if we are born here.

Is this automatic character the explanation as to why most Australian citizens take the notion for granted, fail to reflect on the rights or the responsibilities of citizenship, and would be hard pressed to define its meaning and practical import?

The first challenge for those who want to strengthen civil society, to move to a conscious and meaningful citizenship for all is this: we must face up to the massive knowledge gap between our lofty aspirations and what most people make of them.

When you engage in any discussion with the general public that turns on citizens’ rights, you become slap bang up against this gap.

For example, recent polling (Amnesty 2006) shows that:

1. Most Australians favour a law to protect their human rights
2. Even more Australians think we already have one.

If we want to develop a living notion of citizenship, robust enough to defeat the kind of aggressive religious and cultural discrimination revealed recently in the local opposition to the building of a Muslim school at Camden, or the Cronulla riots, we have to go back to the beginning. We need a discussion with the community based on what really is the case with rights protection, not what is believed to be the case.

If we want to expose as meaningless or worse, allegations that various actions are “unaustralian”, such as a girl wearing a scarf for religious reasons, or boys challenging a referee’s decision at a football match, we have to start at the beginning. We need a discussion here on what the laws of citizenship actually cover.

Our education system needs to incorporate and develop at every level, appropriate notions of citizenship. PM Rudd is keen to see a national curriculum, and citizenship should be part of it. Even if this happens and is successful, the school based approach only deals with children.

What do we do about all those current adult Australian citizens who need information? And what do we do about all those immigrants seeking to take out Australian citizenship?

We have to do better than a pathetic Citizenship test that includes the name of a famous cricketer as essential knowledge.

There are many possible approaches. Here is one suggestion:

The “New Matlida” Human Rights Act for Australia campaign contains a powerful education potential that could meet the challenge of getting all of us to understand citizenship, and our rights and responsibilities in relation to it.

At the core of this campaign, which started in October 2005, is a draft, a model Australian Human Rights Act, or Charter. This much worked over and debated document sets out in clear straightforward language the human rights covered in the major UN rights instruments including: the UN CCPR, the UN ESCC, the Refugee convention, the Rights of the Child.

We have put into statutory form the rights to free speech, freedom of movement, of religion, right to a fair trial, and the rights to education, health and work, the right to join a trade union, to collective bargaining and so on. These are rights Australians take for granted. They are shocked to discover most of these rights are without specific protection in our legal system.

My proposal is that the Rudd government take this model bill as the basis for its heralded community consultation on an Australian charter of rights. This step would provide massive opportunities for people to discuss and debate such rights, to consider which ones they want, how they are best protected, and what new measures we may need to close identified gaps in our democratic system.

For example: gaps that led to children imprisoned behind barbed wire to the point of physical or mental collapse, asylum seekers condemned in perpetuity to detention, mentally ill Australians jailed or kicked out to the country; other gaps that allow arrest without trial, refuse information to legitimate enquirers and encroach without justification on freedom of speech (the sedition provisions of anti terror laws). If the people are given plenty of time and opportunity, such gaps in our democratic rights and freedoms could be better understood and remedies supported.

This kind of exercise could bring all interested people up to speed on citizenship in a practical and effective time frame. It could also educate potential new citizens, and others who have come to live in Australia, about what it means to take part in this society, what laws in relation to others’ rights must be obeyed, what rights are protected for all, and what responsibilities we all have, not only governments, to respect these rights for others.

If the concept of citizenship is to provide the foundation for a harmonious, creative, inclusive and successful civil society playing a constructive global role, this is the debate Australia has to have.

Presentation by Susan Ryan to the seventh annual weekend of ideas, organised by Manning Clarke House entitled AUSTRALIAN CITIZENSHIP: IS IT REALLY WORTH HAVING? March 30, 2008