Anti-terror laws mean we need bill of rights
Ron Dyer;18/4/08; A vice-president of the Evatt Foundation; a former NSW minister.
The question of whether Australia should have a bill of rights enacted is coming under increasing examination. This is especially the case against a background of increasingly draconian security or anti-terrorism laws. It has often been asserted that the protection of our rights can be safely left to our parliamentary representatives and that to legislate for a bill of rights would distort our system of government by giving unelected judges too much influence over how our democracy develops. In November 1999, then NSW attorney-general Jeff Shaw QC referred to the standing committee on law and justice of the NSW Legislative Council (which was then chaired by me) the question of whether it would be appropriate and in the public interest to enact a statutory, as distinct from a constitutionally entrenched bill of rights in NSW.
See: http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23556417-17044,00.html
Victoria turns spotlight on human rights
Michael Petty; The Australian; 18/4/08; No Internet Text
Victorians should get more “behind the scenes” information on the Brumby Government’s attitude to human rights, according to the first report on the state’s charter of human rights. The Equal Opportunity and Human Rights Commission also warns the charter will be “dangerously weakened” if Victoria is forced to adopt “blatantly discriminatory” federal laws. In tabling the report in parliament, Attorney-General Rob Hulls announced a further $180,000 would be spent on educating Victorians about the charter.
“I won’t pretend we can build on human rights in a year,” Mr Hulls said. “As the commission noted, more must be done.” The chair of the commission, Fiona Smith, highlighted the case of a 75-year-old woman with dementia who spent three nights in jail. “The woman had been charged with attempted murder and granted bail provided she remained in hospital care,” the report said. “When the hospital discharged her, the only alternative accommodation that could be found was a high-security prison.”
She said the charter had the potential “to improve the quality of government decision-making and service provision, especially in relation to our most vulnerable and disadvantaged community members.” However, she warned that expectations should not be unnecessarily high. “It is very easy to dismiss the charter as a bureaucratic exercise,” she said. “The commission understands that some people will feel frustrated that the model adopted by Victoria does not provide a ‘quick fix’ to shortcomings in the delivery of government and community services.”
She said the commission believed there should be greater transparency in the charter’s legislative processes. The EOHRC provides comment on each bill and the Government must offer a statement on whether legislation is compatible or incompatible with the charter.
“Statements of compatibility provide information about the ‘end point’ in the executive’s human rights assessment,” the report said. “They do not disclose how significantly a provision in a bill may have changed over the course of its development in response to human rights analysis. “While acknowledging the difficulties in making some of these deliberations public, the commission believes more information about this ‘behind the scenes’ analysis would enhance community understanding of the operation and impact of the charter.”
In 2007, the parliament’s Scrutiny of Acts and Regulations Committee expressed different views to those of the minister yet the commission says only one bill was amended in response to these concerns.
“While the commission appreciates that SARC and ministers will often ‘agree to disagree’, we would expect to see some evidence of SARC’s concerns being taken into account — or at least a robust parliamentary exchange in relation to these matters.”
Ms Smith noted there was an “in-between” option — statements of compatibility to accompany bills which explain their incompatibility with human rights.
The report said the Superannuation Legislation Amendment Bill, which prevented income-splitting for same-sex couples, fell into this category. The purpose of the bill was to achieve consistency with a Commonwealth act. “We do not accept that the discriminatory provisions of this bill satisfied the test laid down in section 7 (of the charter) for assessing reasonable limitations. We believe the charter is dangerously weakened if compliance with laws that would not themselves pass a reasonable limitations analysis can be used to satisfy section 7.”
Tags: Australia, Human Rights, Terrorism