The Rudd Government's Human Rights Framework announced this week by Attorney General Robert McClelland (pictured) is a welcome though incomplete addition to protection of human rights in Australia.
The key elements including legislation setting up a Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, funds for human rights education, and a progressive audit of existing legislation including discrimination laws and national security laws should be uncontroversial even in an election year. After all they are measures fully consistent with the submission put to the National Human Rights Consultation by the Federal Coalition.
The Labor government has baulked at the recommendation for an Australian Human Rights Act which would allow judges to assess Commonwealth laws, policies and practices for human rights compliance. Mr McClelland told the National Press Club that 'a legislative charter of rights is not included in the Framework as the Government believes that the enhancement of human rights should be done in a way that, as far as possible, unites rather than divides our community'.
There has been a recurring suggestion that the National Human Rights Consultation Committee which I chaired was a group of like-minded persons with a preconceived view on a legislative charter of rights, attentive only to the voices of an elite. Ironically, the suggestion has come from members of an elite with a preconceived view hostile to any such charter, invoking the good of the people, regardless of the views expressed by the people.
It is worth recalling that the discussion paper for the consultation was written by the Attorney General's department before the selection of the committee. The three questions put to the public did not mention a charter of rights specifically. Most people who made submissions and the majority of those who attended community roundtables morphed the discussion into a question about a human rights act.
35,000 people made submissions to us. More than 6000 came through the door and sat down for a two-hour discussion with us, as we conducted over 60 community roundtable discussions the length and breadth of the country. Of the 35,000 people who sent submissions of any sort, 33,356 expressed a view for or against a human rights act. 87 per cent of those who expressed a view were in support. The overwhelming majority of those 6000 persons who attended a community roundtable supported such an