Victoria
: 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 Author: Jenny Stokes | Modified: 27 March 2008 |
