Victoria : Debate - Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities

Campaign Status: Completed

May - July 2006: The Victorian Government passed the 'Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities' in 2006.

The Legislative Assembly passed the Bill on 15 June 2006, and the Legislative Council passed the Bill on 20 July 2006.

This page deals with the Bill and the debate in Parliament - from May 2006 onwards....
For the 'Consultation' phase, and Articles opposing a Charter of Rights, click here.

Documents:

The Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities.

Overview of the Charter - on the University of NSW website.

Click here for Peter Faris' ongoing website on the Victorian Charter.

After the Charter began on 1 January 2008, he had an article in the Herald Sun:
Peter Faris: Lawyers' picnic for your rights
Herald Sun, 1 Jan 2008.
_____________________

The issue and campaign:

The Victorian Bracks Labor government proceded with its plan to introduce a 'Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities'.
Attorney General Rob Hulls gave the Second Reading Speech on 4 May, 2006 The Bill was debated in the Legislative Assembly and PASSED on 15 June 2008.

Most Liberals voted against the Charter, as did ALL the Nationals and the two Independents.
The Bill went to the Legislative Council when Parliament returned after the winter break (July 2006). It was passed on 20 July 2008.

________________________

Important Documents:
* Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act
* Explanatory Memorandum
* Second Reading Speech
Explains the government's purpose and aims for the Bill.

Prof George Williams, who supports the Bill, has an Overview - click here .

ACTION: Victorians, please write to MPs as listed below (scroll down to bottom).
Phone them up, and go and see them!
This is an important piece of legislation and we need to politely express our concerns NOW!
Use some of the following points, expressed in your own words.
Please ask them to vote AGAINST a Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities.
The Liberal Party has recently issued a media release calling for the Bracks government to take the matter of a 'Charter' to a referendum at the November election.
Whilst this is a welcome development, we need to ask them to adopt a position totally opposing the Charter.

The full email is also in the attached document.

The following is a statement outlining some key reasons we oppose a Charter of Rights. Links to the Bill, etc and an Action section are included below that...

Salt Shakers opposes the introduction of any form of a 'Charter' of 'Rights'
There are several major concerns about the proposed 'Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities'.

First, it is based on United Nations documents:
These instruments are often humanistic and require certain behaviours such as 'non-discrimination'. The proposed Charter is based on the 'International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights'.
The Bill proposes that a Review be held after four years - and that the review can consider whether "additional human rights should be included as human rights under this Charter". (Section 44).
These rights could come from OTHER UN documents and charters. In other words, the Charter could be ADDED to in the future.

Second, the proposed Charter gives additional rights to courts:
In the proposed Victorian Charter the courts will not be able to override Victorian law BUT the courts will be able to send a notice to the parliament called a "Declaration of inconsistent interpretation" (Section 36).
This would say to the Parliament that a law is 'not compatible' with the Charter - and would put pressure on the Parliament to change the laws.
A Charter could be used to influence the Parliament and remove its independence and accountability to the people. In some countries the courts have been given authority in the 'Charter' to actually override Parliament.
In Canada the Charter of Rights and Freedoms has been used by the courts to force the government to allow same-sex marriage.
In our Westminster system of parliamentary democracy, a system has been developed over a long period of time that keeps each branch of government accountable to each other and the people.
We place great value on our common law, inherited from England. The English Bill of Rights still applies in Victoria - we do not want or need another Charter.

Third, the State does not have the right to 'give' rights to its citizens:
There are rights which are inherent or God-given. By 'defining' our rights, other rights are removed. To give rights to one person often removes another right from a second person.

Section 7 notes that the 'rights' may be limited by the State: "A human right may be subject under law only to such reasonable limits as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society based on human dignity, equality and freedom, and taking into account all relevant factors including . . . "

But who decides what is 'justified'?
We have already seen rights severely limited in Victoria by the Racial and Religious Tolerance Act.
At a time when there is talk of requiring Muslim imams not to preach in Arabic but to preach in English, this charter would enshrine the right for a person to "use his or her language" when "in community with other persons of that background." (Section 19)

The Charter says that someone may have the right to "declare and practise his or her religion".
However Article 18 of the actual UN Covenant is much more comprehensive when it says:

1. Everyone shall have the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion. This right shall include freedom to have or to adopt a religion or belief of his choice, and freedom, either individually or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in worship, observance, practice and teaching.
2. No one shall be subject to coercion which would impair his freedom to have or to adopt a religion or belief of his choice.
3. Freedom to manifest one's religion or beliefs may be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary to protect public safety, order, health, or morals or the fundamental rights and freedoms of others.
4. The States Parties to the present Covenant undertake to have respect for the liberty of parents and, when applicable, legal guardians to ensure the religious and moral education of their children in conformity with their own convictions.

Fourth, some of the rights are of particular concern to Christians:
To mention just two:

Discrimination: Section 8 includes ""Every person has the right to enjoy his or her human rights without discrimination." and "Every person is equal before the law and is entitled to the equal protection of the law without discrimination and has the right to equal and effective protection against discrimination."
This discrimination section includes sexual orientation.

Right to Life: Section 9 says "Every person has the right to life and has the right not to be arbitrarily deprived of life."

In the Draft Bill, this Section contained an additional clause, "For the purposes of this Charter, sub-section (1) applies to a person from the time of his or her birth."
Many of the pro-life and family groups, and the Catholic church, protested about that clause and it has been removed from the final version of the proposed Charter.

HOWEVER, I have discussed Section 9 with senior legal people and they say that the word 'arbitrarily' means 'without a reason'. This could possibly be interpreted by activist judges to allow such things as abortion or euthanasia where a 'reason' could be given for depriving someone of life.
Although a similar phrase appears in the UN ICCPR "No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his life" this is qualified by FOUR subsequent sections which refer to countries that may still have the death sentence and describes the process of law to be followed in such situations. It also refers to genocide and the killing of people in such circumstances.
By not adding any qualifications, the phrase remains alarmingly vague!

And Fifth, the Equal Opportunity Commission is to be given MORE power!
The name of the Commission would be changed to the Victorian Equal Opportunity and Human Rights Commission".
The Commission (as well as the Attorney General) would be entitled to "intervene in the proceeding or to make submissions in respect of the proposed declaration of inconsistent interpretation" (Section 36).

ACTION: Concerned citizens were encouraged to write to their three MPs and political party leaders.
"Please write polite letters to the following MPs asking them not to vote for the Charter of Rights: If POSTING, send to Parliament House, Melbourne, Vic 3002. For full details of all MPs, see http://www.parliament.vic.gov.au/mps.html