HUMAN RIGHTS
ACTION
CONTENTS
BILL OF RIGHTS
A Bill of Rights for Victoria?
The Victorian Human Rights Consultation Committee is overseeing a community consultation into whether or not Victoria should have a Bill of Rights. The Committee has published a community discussion paper, ‘Have your say about human rights in Victoria’. The paper asks ten key questions and provides some discussion around these questions to encourage community debate and participation. It also provides some background information about the main issues around developing a framework to better protect and promote human rights in Victoria and overseas models. The Committee has called for submissions, which are due by 1 August 2005.
For more information contact the Human Rights Consultation Project on 1300 368 918, e-mail [email protected] or visit the website at www.justice.vic.gov.au/humanrights
ALHR will be formulating a submission to the Human Rights Consultation Committee. ALHR members who are interested in participating in this process should contact [email protected]. ALHR encourages its members to make their own submissions to the Human Rights Consultation Committee. ALHR will be emailing members with a Position Statement that may be useful for members wishing to formulate their own submission.
Assessing the first year of the ACT Human Rights Act
The Regulatory Institutions Network at the ANU and the Gilbert + Tobin Centre of Public Law at UNSW are holding a one day event in Canberra that will assess the first year of Australia's first Bill of Rights, the Human Rights Act 2004 (ACT). Speakers will look at the impact the Act has had in the courts, parliament and the bureaucracy. They will also discuss the effect it might have in the future, including upon the national Bill of Rights debate and in light of the consultations with the Victorian community on whether that State should enact a Charter of Human Rights.
regnet.anu.edu.au/events/current_events/, or contact Leah Dunn on (02) 6125 3005 or [email protected].
A Bill of Rights for NSW?
In May 2000 ALHR made a submission to the Law
and Justice Committee inquiry into a Bill of Rights, available as
a .PDF document here.
On 18 July 2000 ALHR gave evidence to the Bill of Rights inquiry. A transcript
is available as a .PDF document from the Committee's website.
The Committee reported on 3 October 2001, and a copy of the report is
available as a .PDF document here.
The Committee recommended against NSW adopting a Bill of Rights. It did
however recommend to the NSW Government that legislation in NSW be scrutinised
for compliance with Australia's human rights obligations.
In November 2002 the NSW parliament passed the
Legislation Review Amendment Act 2002 to amend the Regulation Review
Act 1987. Consequently the newly established Legislation Review Committee
will scrutinise all Bills and will advise the Parliament of the extent
to which the proposed legislation A Bill of Rights for the ACT?
In March 2003 ALHR made a submission
to the Bill of Rights Consultative
Committee in relation to their inquiry into a Bill of Rights for the
ACT.
The Committee's
Report was published on 21 May 2003.
back to top
CHILDREN AND YOUNG PEOPLE
- UN Special Session
- Children overboard
- Children in migration detention
UN Special Session on Children
The United Nations General Assembly Special
Session on Children took place in September 2001. The draft outcome
statement for Special Session was called. ALHR made comments
on the draft outcome statement, "A World Fit for Children".
Children Overboard
In March 2002 Australian Lawyers for Human Rights made a submission
to the Senate Select Committee on a Certain Maritime Incident. ALHR raised
concerns at the racist overtones in much of the public comment concerning
the alleged incident. After an analysis of the so-called 'Border Protection'
legislation ALHR recommended:
- That all Parliamentarians be encouraged to sign the Federal Parliamentary
Code of Race Ethics, and be informed of the outcomes of the World Conference
Against Racism.
- That the Australian and Nauruan and PNG Governments give priority
to facilitating independent monitoring of the camps.
- That the 'Pacific Solution' be the subject of an inquiry to determine
the legality of all aspects of the policy its implementation and effect.
- That safeguards be put in place to ensure that policies relating the
management of asylum seekers comply with international human rights
obligations and standards.
- That all amendments to the Migration Act since July 2001 be repealed,
and re-introduced for proper public consultation and for assessment
as to compliance with international human rights obligations and standards.
The Committee's
Report was published on 23 October 2002.
Children in Immigration Detentions
In May 2002 Australian Lawyers for Human Rights made a submission
to the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission's Inquiry into Children
in Immigration Detention. ALHR's submission:
- gave an overview of the implications of the current system of mandatory
detention of asylum seekers, including child asylum seekers, in terms
of the relevant international legal normative framework
- reviewed the current standards of accountability, monitoring and intervention
in relation to immigration detention, including a critique of the operation
of Immigration Detention Centres in the context of mandatory reporting
of child abuse; and
- proposed an ideal model of accountability, monitoring and intervention
in relation to immigration detention.
The Commission is due to publish its report late in 2003.
back to top
CIVIL AND POLITICAL RIGHTS
- Mandatory sentencing
- Convention Against Torture: Australia's 2nd report
- Convention Against Torture: Optional Protocol
- Privacy
- Freedom of Information
- Double Jeopardy
- and see 'Terrorism/War' below
Mandatory sentencing
ALHR made a submission
to the Senate Inquiry into the Human Rights (Mandatory Sentencing for
Property Offences) Bill 2000.
The Committee's
Report was published in March 2002.
Mandatory sentencing has been held to be unlawful in Fiji: read
the decision.
Convention Against Torture: Australia's Second Report
On 6 February 1998 Australian Lawyers for Human Rights provided comments
to the Australian Government on the draft of Australia's
Second Report to the Committee Against Torture under the Convention.
The Committee has since released its final
report.
Convention Against Torture: Optional Protocol
On 18 July 2002 the Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) of the United
Nations considered the Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture.
The Protocol would establish mechanisms for the prevention of torture,
which do not presently exist. The text of the draft Protocol was agreed
to at the April meeting of the Commission on Human Rights after a vote
reflecting a significant majority (29 for,10 against, 14 abstentions).
Australia has opposed the draft Protocol at the Commission on Human Rights
because it will be adopted by vote instead of by consensus.
The main opponents to the Protocol, apart from the United States, are
China, Cuba, Egypt and Saudi Arabia who have persistently objected to
preventive measures. The text is supported by Canada, New Zealand, the
European Union and other European countries and South Africa. (this background
information supplied by Amnesty International)
ALHR exhorted the Australian Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade Mr
Downer to support the Protocol, in a letter
dated 10 July 2002.
Privacy
In May 2003 ALHR made a submission
on the Draft Guidelines on Consent and Capacity under the Privacy and
Personal Information Protection Act 1998 (NSW) . ALHR's submission addressed
the inapproriate way in which the draft guidelines dealt with the needs
of people with disabilities.
Freedom of Information
In 2003, at the invitation of the Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative
based in India, ALHR drafted a
chapter on Australian law for its international 'Right To Information'
publication.
Double Jeopardy
In May 2003 ALHR published an essay
commenting on proposals to abolish or amend the criminal procedure rule
against double jeopardy.
back to top
CORPORATE SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY
In April 2003 ALHR made a submission
to the Australian National Contact Point for the OECD Guidelines, proposing
a definition of a Multinational Enterprise.
ALHR is concerned that the concept of a multinational enterprise is insufficiently
defined.This results in real uncertainty as to the effective extent and
effect of the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises, 2000 as a basis
for ensuring corporations comply with human rights standards.
back to top
DISABILITY
- See 'Drug dependency' under Discrimination
- see 'Privacy' under Civil and Political Rights
back to top
DISCRIMINATION
- Drug dependency
- Pregnancy
People with drug-dependence excluded from anti-discrimination
laws
In February 2001, in
letters to the NSW and Commonwealth Attorneys General,ALHR raised
concerns regarding proposals to amend Federal and State anti-discrimination
law to prevent drug dependence from being defined as a disability.
The NSW Government has since passed an amendment
to the NSW Anti-Discrimination Act to allow discrimination against a person
in the workplace on the ground of disability if the disability relates
to addiction to a prohibited drug and the person is actually addicted.There
are exceptions are for people with Hepatitis C or HIV infection.
The amendment was passed despite strong submissions from ALHR and other
NGOs. The NSW Greens in the upper house moved amendments to limit the
effect of the proposal, but none was adopted.The Opposition voted with
the Government.
The practical result is that people with addiction to prohibited drugs
are not given protection against discrimination in the workplace based
on their addiction.People who have a disability arising from their addiction
are similarly unprotected. Arguably this extends to people with a range
of disabilities that could said to be connected to their addiction including
mental illness, brain injury, physical disabilities.
People who have not used drugs for several years but could still be medically
defined as 'addicted' can be discriminated against. So too can people
who are no longer considered addicted but who have a disability which
relates to their previous addiction even f their addiction ended many
years ago.
In giving protection against disability discrimination, the NSW Anti-Discrimination
Act will now distinguish between people to be protected based on the cause
of their disability.
Pregnancy discrimination amendments to the Sex Discrimination
Act
In 1999 the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission published its
report
on the National Pregnancy and Work Inquiry : Pregnant and Productive:
It's a right not a privilege to work while pregnant.
In response to the report's recommendations the Federal Goverment introduced
the Sex
Discrimination Amendment (Pregnancy and Work) Bill 2002.
ALHR supports the Bill as far as it goes, but in a submission
to Senators has called on the Parliament to amend the Bill to implemnt
the full range of the report's recommendations, and to adequately reflect
Australia's international human rights obligations.
back to top
EDUCATION AND TRAINING
- CDROM course on Human Rights Law
- 'Human Rights In Practice' seminars in NSW
- Human Rights and Good Governance Education in the Asia Pacific Region
CDROM course on Human Rights Law
ALHR has proposed a project to provide short training courses in the structure,
principles and law of human rights practice in Australia. The project
is being developed in co-operation with the National Association of Community
Legal Centres and the Victoria Law Foundation.
The need for a project such as this was explored in a paper
Simon Rice gave to the Conference of the National Association of Community
Legal Centres in Perth in September 2001.
'Human Rights In Practice' Seminars in NSW
Each year ALHR collaborates with the Young Lawyers section of the NSW
Law Society to run a series of seminars on the human rights law dimensions
of legal practice.
2000:
2001:
- 'Consumer Protection: Human Rights in Commercial Practice': Peter
Kell
- 'Private Information in the Public Domain: The Right to Privacy in
NSW': Chris Puplick; Annemaree McDonough
- 'Human Rights in Environmental & Planning Law': Dr Nicola Pain;
The Hon Justice Neal Bignold
2002:
- 'International Human Rights Law: Its Relevance to Australian Practice':
Dr Sarah Pritchard; Anne Marie Devereux
- 'Introduction to Anti-Discrimination Law and Practice ': Michelle
Hannon; Jill Moir and Maggie Smyth; Simon Rice
- 'Discrimination and Equal Opportunity in the Workplace' : Sally Moyle;
Kate Eastman, Sarah Heesom
Human Rights and Good Governance Education in the
Asia Pacific Region
In April 2003 ALHR made a submission
to the inquiry by the Human Rights Sub-Committee Joint Standing Committee
on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade.
On 16 May 2003 members of ALHR gave evidence to the Committee's public
inquiry in Sydney.
The Committee is due to report in late 2003.
back to top
INTERNATIONAL
CRIMINAL COURT
In December 2000 ALHR made a submission to the Australian Government's Joint
Standing Committee Inquiry into the 1998 Statute
for an International Criminal Court. The submission can be download
as a .PDF document from the Committee's website: www.aph.gov.au/house/committee/jsct/ICC/subs.htm
On 13 February 2001 ALHR gave evidence to the JSCOT Inquiry into the 1998
Statute for anInternational Criminal Court. The transcript can be download
as a .PDF document from the Committee's website: www.aph.gov.au/house/committee/jsct/ICC/hearings.htm
On 15 February 2001 the Sydney Morning Herald published a letter
from ALHR on Australia's ratification of the International Criminal Court.
Since that time ALHR has campaigned consistently for Australia's ratification
of the Statute. In May 2002 ALHR supported a mock ICC trial run by NSW Red
Cross in the NSW Supreme Court.
After an extensive national inquiry, JSCOT recommended in favour of ratficationThe
JSCOT inquiry reported on 14 May 2002 and its report is available from the
Committee's website:
www.aph.gov.au/house/committee/jsct/ICC/report.htm
On 17 June 2002 ALHR wrote a
letter to all Federal Coalition Members of Parliament to explain the
effect of the ICC Statute and to urge them to support ratification.
On 19 June 2002 the Federal Government resolved to ratify the Rome Statute
and passed the necessary
legislation.
back to top
INTERNATIONAL TREATIES
AND DOMESTIC IMPLEMENTATION
- The High Court decision in Teoh
- Proposed amendments to the HREOC Act in 1998
- Proposed amendments to the HREOC Act in 2003The High Court decision
in Teoh
In Minister
of State for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v Ah Hin Teoh (1994-1995)
183 CLR 273 the Australian High Court confirmed that an applicant to the
Government for an administrative decision has a legitimate expectation
that the decision-maker will take into account Australia's international
treaty obligations when making the decision.
In April 2001 the Australian Government re-introduced a Bill designed
to negate the effect of the High Court decision in Teoh: the Administrative
Decisions (Effect of International Instruments) Bill 1999.
Australian Lawyers for Human Rights wrote a
letter to all Australian Senators urging them to oppose the Bill.
Response to our submission divided along party lines: the Government supporting
the Bill, the Labor Party proposing amendments, and the Democrats opposing
the Bill.
As well, Australian Lawyers for Human Rights issued a public
comment on the Bill.
The Bill is now an 'old Bill' - it lapsed at the 2001 election and has
not been re-introduced.
Proposed amendments to the HREOC Act in 1998
In 1998 the Australian Government called for submissions in relation to
its Human Rights Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1998. In July 1998
Australian Lawyers for Human Rights made a submission
in response to an invitation from the Australian Government.
The Bill, which became the Human Rights Legislation Amendment Bill (No.
2) 1999 was not passed by the Australian Government, due in large part
to a range of objections taken to its terms.
The Bill lapsed at the 2001 Federal election.
Proposed amendments to the HREOC Act in 1998
In 2003 the Australian Government re-introduced the 1999 proposed amendments,
in the
Australian Human Rights Commission Bill 2003
The Bill was referred to the Senate Legal Consitutional Affairs Committee
and ALHR made a submission
in April 2003 (submission #174).
The Committee's
report was published on 29 May 2003.
back to top
REFUGEES AND MIGRATION
- Migration Act amendments
- "Pacific Solution": Nauru
Migration Act amendments
In May 2002 Australian Lawyers for Human Rights made a submission
to the Senate Legal and Constitutional Committee on the Federal Government's
proposed amendments to the Migration Act.
ALHR said that the amendments erode the best practice of Australian administrative
law, and give insufficient regard to the needs and entitlements of asylum-seekers,
who must be treated as genuine until proven conclusively not to be so.
In August 2002 Australian Lawyers for Human Rights made a submission
to the Senate Legal and Constitutional Committee on the Federal Government's
proposal to amend the Migration Act and excise further territory from
Australia: The
Migration Legislation Amendment (Further Border Protection Measures) Bill
2002. The Committee has since tabled its final
report.
ALHR said that the amendment confuses the human rights issue of asylum
with the law enforcement issue of border control; fails to recognise the
phenomenon of forced migration; is inappropriately retrospective; undermines
Australia's obligation of non-refoulement; avoids Australia's responsibility
to afford refugees effective protection; and is inconsistent on many points
with Australia's treaty obligations .
"Pacific Solution": Nauru
Between August 2001 and March 2003 ALHR tried unsuccessfully to get lawyers
to Nauru to provide legal assistance to asylum seekers detained there.
The aim of the project was to extend to the asylum seekers in Nauru the
same right to legal advice they would have had if they had been allowed
to land in Australia. The United Nations High Commission for Refugees
supports the principle of asylum seekers having access to independent
legal advice.
Many lawyers volunteered to travel, and many organsiations committed their
support to the project. Visa applications were refused twice, and no reasons
were given. ALHR was unable to get lawyers to Nauru: Media
Release.
TPV Assistance
Holders of Temporary Protection Visas (TPVs) must satisfy a revised test
of eligibility to succeed in their application to remain in Australia.
In 2002 ALHR, on behalf of the Refugee Council of Australia, asked for
lawyers to assist in processing the applications for extension of protection
for holders of Temporary Protection Visas. Many ALHR members volunteered
to join a coalition of people to be trained to provide assistance to TPV
holders.
For further information, or to request advice and assistance, email to:
[email protected]
back to top
RESEARCH
Human rights capabilities of Australian NGOs
ALHR is in partnership with the Australian Human Rights Centre at the University
of NSW to operate t he Australian Human Rights Project. The Project will
research and report on a national approach to supporting human rights advocacy
and education in Australia. The Project is funded by the Myer Foundation
and the Wynn Family Trust, and is supported by the UNSW Law Faculty.
Full recognition of human rights standards is essential to achieving social
justice in Australia. ALHR believes that a national approach is a necessary
response to Australia's declining commitment to human rights standards.
Through research and consultation, the Project will detail the necessary
components for a national approach to be viable and effective.
In its first stage the Project will work with non-government social justice
organisations to highlight the relevance of human rights to their work,
and to learn about their capacity for human rights advocacy and education.
This unprecedented research will allow organisations working with human
rights to say what they do, how could do it better, and how their needs
could be met.
In its second stage the Project will research and report on the appropriateness
and feasibility of a national organisation, or other national approach,
to meet these needs.
The Project will report by the end of 2003. Download
the PDF flier for more detail.
back to top
SEXUALITY
In 2003 the Senator Brian Greig of the Australian Democrats introduced a
Private Member's Bill, the Sexuality
Anti-Vilification Bill 2003. ALHR supported the objects of the Bill,
but had reservations
about its drafting which were advised to Senator Grieg.
back to top
TERRORISM | WAR
- Anti-terrorism legislation 2002
- Anti-terrorism (ASIO) legislation 2002/3
- Legality of the war on Iraq
Anti-Terrorism Legislation 2002
In May 2002 Australian Lawyers for Human Rights made a submission
to the Senate Legal and Constitutional Committee on the Security Legislation
Amendment (Terrorism) Bill 2002 [No.2].
ALHR understands the need to take steps to protect Australia from acts
of terrorism, but says that in seeking a balance betweeen community safety
and fundamental rights, the draft legislation contains unwarrented breaches
of individuals' rights, and abrogates Australia's international human
rights obligations.
The Committee's
Report was tabled on 8 May 2002.
Anti-terrorism (ASIO) Legislation 2002|03
In November 2002 Australian Lawyers for Human Rights made a written submission
(#177) to the Senate Legal and Constitutional Committee on the Federal
Government's proposed anti-terrorism amendments to ASIO powers: the Australian
Security Intelligence Organisation Legislation Amendment (Terrorism) Bill
2002.
On 26 November 2002 ALHR gave
evidence to the Senate Committee public hearings in Sydney.
The Legality of the Iraq War
ALHR formed the opinion that that the agression against Iraq by the combined
military forces of the USA, Great Britain and Australia was illegal in
international law. ALHR adopted a
policy position on the issue and was one of 43 signatories to a widely
published open
letter.
WOMEN | GENDER
See 'Pregnancy' under Discrimination
back to top
This page last updated 9th September 2004
|
