Commentary

The government’s dismissive response to a recent UN report which investigates the state of housing in Australia offers little promise that we will start to see a new commitment to making housing more accessible and affordable for all Australians.

Torture, the sale of children, arbitrary detention, unlawful killings, extreme poverty and attacks against human rights defenders are all abuses that are investigated and often prevented by independent United Nations human rights experts.  However, the UN Human Rights Council (‘Council’) is considering measures to eliminate or weaken the role of these effective human rights champions.

The Australian Government recently signed the new Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities in a ceremonial opening of the Convention on 30 March 2007 at the UN Headquarters in New York.  This is a significant achievement for people with disability in Australia and globally, many of whom have been engaged in the development of the Convention over many years.  The Australian Government is to be congratulated for its contribution to the development and signing of the Convention and for taking this important step in the development of international human rights law. Sadly, however, the signing of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities is one positive step amongst an accumulation of much reluctance on the part of the current Australian Government.

Victoria’s Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities has now been in force for three months.  Although it is too early to evaluate the Charter’s impact, some early insights and reflections are timely. UK Daily Times columnist Melanie Phillips (The Age, 21 March 2007) would have us believe that Victoria has enacted a ‘judicial delivery system for cultural Marxism’.  Conservative politicians and commentators made similarly dire predictions prior to the Charter’s commencement, deriding it as a ‘monstrous attack’ on democratic traditions that would empower minority groups and left-wing judges.  Meanwhile, the Charter’s proponents describe it as landmark legislation that will strengthen democracy, promote accountability, and ensure respect for fundamental rights and freedoms.

The Federal Attorney-General, Philip Ruddock MP, held up the example of Atticus Finch in a recent article in the Australian in which he attacked pro bono lawyers, saying that, ‘an increasing shade of moral vanity colours pro bono work’. In particular, Mr Ruddock attacked lawyers for attempting to effect ‘broader social and political change’.

It is almost 40 years since the last person was hanged in Australia. Today, the death penalty has been abolished in every Australian jurisdiction. Opposition to the death penalty attracts bi-partisan political support. Yet, in a region where many of our closest neighbours still maintain the death penalty, I believe Australia can – and should – take a stronger stand against state sanctioned execution.

On 18 August 2006, the Victorian Court of Appeal quashed convictions against Jack Thomas for receiving funds from a terrorist organisation and possessing a falsified Australian passport. Mr Thomas had previously been found guilty of these offences on the basis of self-inculpatory admissions made during an interview conducted by Australian Federal Police (‘AFP’) in Pakistan on 8 March 2003. The Court of Appeal quashed the convictions because these admissions constituted the only evidence to incriminate Mr Thomas.

Rights, without a forum in which to give them expression, are merely rhetorical. This, surely, is one reason that civil and political rights glamorously strut the human rights stage. They appear in our newspapers. People regularly protest their violation. Nations are (sometimes) diplomatically spanked for breaching them. This is possible because they are exposed.