The Australian Labor Party has long had a commitment to entrenching the protection of human rights, driven by a continuing tradition of legal liberalism associated with luminaries such as Gough Whitlam and Gareth Evans. Yet the ALP has also had a countervailing authoritarian streak, which seems particularly prominent in New South Wales, whence both the Rudd government’s Attorney-General, Robert McClelland, and opposition to a Charter of Rights spring.
The government appointed a committee to consult on methods of protecting human rights, headed by Jesuit priest and lawyer Frank Brennan, early in its term. McClelland has now released the government’s response, which is a masterpiece of ambiguity and weasel words.
The Rudd government certainly hasn’t distinguished itself in the realm of civil liberties.
I find myself in agreement with the conclusion of Guy Beres’ post:
All things considered, it’s hard not to view the government’s performance on this issue as rather weak, and the outcome here as an indictment of the Rudd Government’s use of the public consultation as a mechanism for guiding policy. If you’re going to make public consultations part of your modus operandi as a government, you better well make sure that you provide a robust explanation for why you have flatly rejected the recommendations of the people you are consulting.
And also with this:
However, I am somewhat confused by the assertion that the introduction of a national act would be somehow “divisive” or would create an atmosphere of “uncertainty or suspicion”. Surely one could argue quite effectively that the absence of any legal bedrock on human rights in Australia is a fairly considerable source of division and uncertainty? A federal Human Rights Act would lay Australia’s human rights cards on the table for all to see.
Indeed. A Charter of Rights seems divisive only to hardline religious figures, conservative commentators, Tony Abbott and John Howard and NSW Labor hacks.
Elsewhere: Woolly Days, Andrew Norton.
The consultation on human rights was just one of the things that provided the impression that a Rudd government would mean real change from the Howard years. It had been just too easy under the Howard watch for rights to disappear and the checks and balances provided by the union movement and others to be swept aside.
Since then it has also been too easy for premiers like Rann and Barnett to take away rights.
To my mind we at least need a system that:
1. Identifies rights that should be reserved under normal circumstances.
2. Accepts that there may be times where urgent action is required that requires the suspension of one of these rights for a specific case.
3. Insists that parliament must pass a motion acknowledging that an exception has been made if the legislation, regulation, executive decision etc. is to stand.
4. Put a sunset clause on the exception. My preference would be that the exception should be acknowledged within 6 months of an election.
5. The power of the high court be limited to insisting that parliament must acknowledge that an exception has been made and is necessary.
My preference would be that exceptions be supported by both sides of parliament. (2/3 of the senate?)
It is disappointing that the government looks like doing nothing.
This was always going to be the outcome. Not one prominent ALP figure throughout this process strongly supported a Charter of Rights, not even from the Left. They must have all not cared, or decided it was not worth the candle.
And while the NSW Right mafia has been most vocal in its opposition, you can be sure that McClelland would not have killed the idea without clearance from Rudd.
For sure, Sam.
It is a shame that the Democrats have disappeared. Human rights used to be one of their key concerns.
No problem.
The community consultation was a farce and mainly it was the plonkers who really want a Bill of Rights who attended. Fortunatley the government worked this out.
Why is it that progressives always claim it is the conservatives who are divisive?
Elsewhere: Woolly Days, Andrew Norton.
Oh please, ‘anti – Bill of Rights’ stuff has always been an hilariously stupid position; especially for an MP to hold.
Firstly, we already have one: its called the 1689 Bill of Rights, its still in force in Australia, and its the ONLY REASON YOU DICKHEAD MPs HAVE PARLIAMENTARY PRIVILEGE AGAINST LIBEL SUIT.
So everyone else, please bear in mind parliamentarians already enjoy the benefits of a bill of rights, have for centuries: they just arent too interested in yours.
Not at all surprised this didn’t get up. The idea that the poor, women, Aborigines, the disabled, refugees, the unemployed &C might have human rights enshrined in legislation is absolutely ludicrous! They’re damned lucky to have the vote. Don’t you realise these people are the lower orders.Indeed, they’re damned lucky we even acknowledge their existence. Mind you I see Mr. Abbott has some ideas for pulling them into line, of which I utterly appreve. And those smelly old people. Gawd!
Paul, it’s not just – or even – the ‘lower orders’ who necessarily benefit from a bill of rights. Under the Canadian Charter, corporations have done quite well, managing to strike down legislation that tried to curtail advertising, to curb corporate funding of political causes and to limit Sunday trading, while successfully arguing that trade unions’ right to strike and picket is to be subjugated to corporations’ right to trade.
To Kim’s list of “hardline religious figures, conservative commentators, Tony Abbott and John Howard and NSW Labor hacks” one could add “and many principled leftists”
Anthony @ 10,
well, I guess human rights applies to everyone, even gung-ho capitalists, despite the fact that they’re hardly human. If we want to improve the lot of the poor and the underpriviledged and those groups who bear the brunt of discrimination and persecution – right now, if Abbott ever gets his way, that seems to be the unemployed and the disabled and, in tandem with the ALP, refugees- then we have to be prepared to put up with the bad as well as the good
I do find the subjugation of the unions’ right to strike and picket extremely disturbing, but surely the Oz legislation which we ain’t going to get, could be framed to protect their rights.
But I forgot, most of our pollies can’t tie their shoelaces, let alone walk and chew gum at the same time.Hence their puzzling belief that our being signatory to various human rights conventions will protect our rights. We’re currently breaching international law on the rights of refugees and the rights of Aborigines, and under Howard, if I’m not mistaken we were breaching the ILO protections.I’ve lost count of the number of human rights torn into little pieces by the anti-terrorist laws.
Guess Aussies wuill just have to settle with not having as many human rights as most other Wesatern countries. But then again, we hardly notice, do we?
What? This government imposing anything that might slow down its knee-jerk reflex any time there’s some kind of fear campaign?
Even if there was support in the Labor partyroom for this legislation, Kevin Rudd is simply not yet demonstrated any inclination to spend political capital on, well, anything.
Anthony has a point; the corporation must be excluded from this bill. It’s not human. And thanks Robert, well said.
Here’s Brian Walters on the subject:
“The Human Rights Act would [ask] judges to apply human rights, and defining what those rights are. This is entirely in conformity with the usual arrangements between parliament and the courts. Far from transferring power to judges, this tells judges how to exercise the discretion they already have.”
I know that McClelland and the left want a human rights bill- they just couldn’t get the numbers up in cabinet. The right hate the whole idea of human rights and Rudd has no investment or interest in making it an election issue. The Howard legacy is still with us, it will take years to shift society beck to a more prgessive world view. Until then, don’t expect the Rudd Govt to lead the way…
A government decides to reject a reform that would have placed a minor constraint on their ever broadening powers? What a surprise!
The right doesn’t hate human rights.
Hate is a very strong term.
They just think that there are better ways to look after them.
Like – cutting them off the dole/disabiloity pensions, sending them to refugee camps, taking over their land and forcing them onto quarantined welfare, making unions vitrually incapable of functioning – and all that. razor, is without even having to sit back and work it out.
The Right may not hate human rights, Razor, but they certainly regard them as an impediment to business.
Hey, at least we no longer have to listen to Bob Carr banging on about this issue – isn’t that a plus for human rights?
It’s official, the so called civil ones in the world are now dying younger then 10 years ago, when you consider they have control over everything and its not due to outside forces, Im lead to believe dominate society has peaked and are now in an evolutionary reversal, funny how it aligns with the attempts to freeze time, have we made any progress since Howard controlled the country, 3 terms is enough time to imprint his idealology , As our possible new leader would say, women should stay in the kitchen ans save themselfs for marriage, if he gets voted in Im considering applying for refugee status in indonesia, and Im Aboriginal. next pauline hanson will get voted in, a sure sign we are going backwards,