Some rights protection in some of Australia, in spite of everything
A little bit of human rights history was made in south-eastern Australia yesterday when the parliament of Victoria passed laws protecting civil and political rights. The Australian Capital Territory has had a Human Rights Act since 2004, but this is the first major jurisdiction in Australia, the first state, to pass human rights legislation. Western Australia, NSW and Tasmania may follow.
This is all in marked contrast with the mood of the federal government of Australia which doggedly opposes human rights at home and abroad. John Howard’s conservative coalition is in the unusual position of governing the Commonwealth while every state and territory government of Australia is in the hands of the centre-left Australian Labor Party. That is, Australians have chosen to elect a conservative government at the national level and its opposition closer to home. This has interesting implications for human rights, given that health, education and policing are among the responsibilities of Australia’s state governments.
The Victorian Government, led by Lebanese-Australian Steve Bracks, is to be congratulated for the constitutional changes it has introduced during its (now fixed) term in office — sometimes at its own expense — and for this legislation in particular, which was tabled only after relatively wide community consultation. (The consultation — ably led by George Williams, two other human rights experts and a basketballer — received over 2,500 submissions, of which more than 84% were in favour of improved human rights protection.)
Victoria’s Charter of Rights and Responsibilities 2006 may only cover civil and political and cultural rights, but these are rights that, in most cases, were not explicitly protected before. They include freedom from torture and slavery, freedom of religion and expression, assembly and association, rights to a fair trial and humane conditions of incarceration, rights to family and to culture, to property and to privacy.
The Victorian Charter will be reviewed after four years, with the possibility of expanding the range of rights thereby recognised. As Williams’ consultation committee recommended, "the Charter should be the start of incremental change, not the end of it." May this and other state bills support the necessarily longer-term goal of proper domestic implementation of international human rights norms at all levels of government.
[…] In recent years, the UK and Aotearoa/New Zealand have passed ordinary acts of parliament protecting human rights, as have the Australian Capital Territory (ACT) and the state of Victoria. Canada also had a non-entrenched bill which it later upgraded to a Charter of Rights and Freedoms in its Constitution. This example seems a wise path for Australia to follow. A Human Rights Act of parliament would have many advantages for Australia, not the least of which is avoiding the prohibitive difficulty of changing the constitution. (Unlike Canada, Australia’s constitution can only be changed by referendum, requiring a ‘double majority’, that is, a majority of votes in a majority of states, plus an overall majority.) […]
[…] A cynic might suggest the timing is an attempt by the Howard Government to deflect the pro-rights stance of the Australian Labor Party and in particular its new leader, Kevin Rudd. Two Australian jurisdictions governed by the Labor Party have passed Bills of civil and policial rights in recent years, with more likely to follow. Some Australian states also have commissioners dedicated to the protection of children’s rights and interests. Even so, the ratification process might have been in train longer than Rudd’s secret campaign for leadership. […]