The National Human Rights Consultation Committee wrapped up its listening processes with a three-day gathering at Parliament House in early July 09. The committee has asked for an extension of time, and will now report by 30 September.
Caption: Susan Ryan of New Matilda and Dr Kristine Klugman, CLA President, in the Great Hall.
Report on
National Human Rights Consultation Public Hearing
Great Hall, Parliament House, Canberra
By CLA President, Dr Kristine Klugman
The first thing to strike me was that it the three days of presentations, debate, discussion and questions/answers was surprisingly poorly attended (despite free lunches). I estimate the average daily attendance at about 70 people. Perhaps many more people enrolled: there was certainly a surfeit of sandwiches.
I had a feeling that the people who care have already heard all the arguments and had switched off, while the vast majority don’t care. Of those who attended, most seemed to be pro-Charter of Rights, with only a few against.
The event was well organised, and kept strictly to time allocations. The panels of presenters were mostly competent, though varied in quality in their addresses. The time allowed for questions from the audience was insufficient: most questions were intelligent and well put. The Consultation Committee members, who chaired the sessions in turn, had first go at asking questions of the speakers, which resulted in a club-type appearance.
Most of the content of argument and debate was old ground to people who have followed the debate and consultation for a number of years. There was a striking chasm between legalistic constitutional arguments of the academic and legal elites and the evidence given by practitioners who deal daily with abuses of human rights and civil liberties at the coal face.
The central contention of opponents that a charter of human rights would shift power from the parliament to the judiciary (put by Senator George Brandis and Prof Greg Craven) was refuted by proponents (Prof Hilary Charlesworth and former Home Affairs Minister, Bob Debus MP), who pointed out that courts enforce statutes made by parliament on a daily basis.
There was consensus that human rights and civil liberties do need better protection in Australia (one of the terms of reference): the disagreement was on mechanisms to achieve this.
The practical political reality is that, with the Opposition against it, a recommendation for a legislative charter of rights will not succeed in the parliament. The Labor government is also divided. PM Kevin Rudd is not a strong or public advocate. The last Labor federal conference watered down policy from the introduction of a charter, to the lesser position of holding the present consultation process.
Civil Liberties Australia is advocating a strategy which has more long term chance of success (see attachment).
For the CLA representatives, President Kris Klugman and CEO Bill Rowlings, the conference presented an opportunity to actively network with a number of delegates from around Australia on current issues*. Many current CLA members attended**.
In summary, it seems the whole consultation process has had the positive effect of raising general awareness of rights and liberties issues in the community. However, human rights and civil liberties will not be protected until they are enforceable by law.
Dr Kristine Klugman
President, Civil Liberties Australia
July 2009
* Among those with whom closer CLA ties were forged were New Matilda’s Susan Ryan, Dr Helen Watchirs (ACT Human Rights Commissioner), Prof Greg Craven (V-C, Australian Catholic University, ACU), Lisa Baker MLA (Maylands WA), Robin Banks PIAC, Philip and Carole Flood, Bob Debus MP, NSW DPP Nick Cowdery, Phil Lynch of HRLRC Victoria, Debbie Kilroy of Sisters Inside, video producer/director Alex Bonazzi, Father Frank Brennan and Mick Palmer of the Human Rights Consultation Committee, Tessa Scrine of the Bahais, Diana Abdul-Rahman of the Attorney-General’s Department, Bill Mitchell of Townsville (Human Rights Network), Peter McArdle (Australian Catholic Bishops’ Conference) and Liz Langdon (Kalgoorlie Magistrate).
** CLA members included Trish and Jeff Miles, Audrey and Richard Croll, Antony Lamb, Dierk von Behrens, John McMillan, George Williams and Andrew Podger.
ATTACHMENT: précis of CLA proposal to the committee:
…Therefore, CLA believes the National Human Rights Consultation Committee should recommend – in answer to the three questions posed – that:
1. The list of liberties/rights (as identified by the consultation that should be protected and promoted) should be further analysed and refined by a parliamentary process;
2. the liberties/rights of Australians do need better protecting, by the Australian Parliament; and
3. Australia could better protect civil liberties and human rights by the Australian Parliament producing a binding national statement and/or legislation which is an endorsement of the liberties and rights owned by Australians intrinsically and/or mandated by international