Home | Contact Us | Newsletters

When Fr. Frank Brennan, chairman of the Australian government's National Consultation Committee on a Human Rights Charter opened a consultation meeting in Melbourne, he indicated the Committee welcomed all opinions and submissions including those opposed to a Human Rights Charter. However, this is not the line being pushed by the taxpayer-funded Australian Human Rights Commission which is lobbying strongly in favour of a Charter.

My view is shared by John Hatzistergos, NSW Attorney- General, who in an article in The Australian, (15/5/09) wrote: "The piece by Catherine Branson, president of the Australian Human Rights Commission, in these pages last week was the latest incarnation of the incredible shrinking argument of those campaigning to foist a charter of rights or a human rights act on the Australian people.

"The push to create a document listing our inalienable rights began with the idea of constitutional entrenchment. However, proponents soon realised dinner-party conversation about a US-style Bill of Rights brought with it uncomfortable discussion about topics such as abortion and gun control. So we saw a more refined version emerge which involved a legislative charter or rights act, instead of a bill. A charter or act, it was hoped, would be easier to spruik because they wouldn't require a referendum, the likes of which we Australians have historically voted down......"

But why is Catherine Branson spruiking for a Human Rights Charter instead of waiting for the report of the National Consultation Committee on the views of those who attended the consultation meetings? Doesn't the Human Rights Commission care what the people of Australia want or do they think they know what is best for us? Is this patriarchy - or matriarchy - on the part of the AHRC? Or is it a bit of empire building, a pre-emptive strike, as Federal Attorney-General, Robert McClelland has only committed the government to the inquiry that Fr. Brennan is conducting? The Commission’s strident one-sided advocacy is at odds with the consultation as it proceeds with an open mind. Ms. Branson no doubt found it disconcerting when former High Court judge, Michael McHugh said that a charter of rights based on the ACT or Victorian models "is fraught Human Rights Charter national consultation process distorted Charles Francis with difficulties and should be abandoned". Former Chief Justice, Sir Gerard Brennan, (Fr. Brennan's father) is also of the opinion that a charter or a Human Rights Act as in the UK could be unconstitutional.

McHugh was part of the judicial majority when he lamented the lack of a Bill of Rights in the 2003 case of stateless asylum seeker Ahmed Ali-Kateh, but no doubt with age comes wisdom - for judges as for ordinary mortals. McHugh and Gerard Brennan have expressed concerns that a Charter or Bill of Rights would require the courts to issue notices of incompatibility whenever parliament passed legislation which was supposedly in violation of the Rights legislation. However, the Constitution says the High Court's role is to hear and determine matters, and not provide advice to the parliament about the merit of its laws.

Quite unfazed, Ms Branson suggests if the courts can't tell Parliament which of its laws violate the Human Rights Charter, she would do it. She is seeking powers for the Australian Human Rights Commission which it does not have. The commission is supposed to investigate complaints regarding federal discrimination law, to develop educational programs and resources for schools, workplaces and the community. While the AHRC can hold public inquiries and provide advice to governments, it is meant to "promote understanding and acceptance", and remain apolitical. If the AHRC is acting as a de-facto proponent of the "yes" case, where is the government funding for the "no" case? Sir Gerard Brennan says he continues to be a fence sitter regarding a charter, and that those who have labelled him a supporter might have misread his writings since 2006 or missed his recent criticism of Liberty Victoria's stand against a conscience clause in Victoria's decriminalising abortion. The "open mind" is evident when Fr. Brennan chairs the consultation meetings, but the partisan approach has been on display at other venues where those organising the meeting showed a bias in favour of a Charter. If government agencies continue to be partisan, the government should put the matter to a referendum. In the meantime send a submission saying “No” to a Charter or Bill of Rights. Charles Francis, AM, QC, is a barrister and former Victorian State MP