In an address given to the National Human Rights Consultation, JIM WALLACE, managing director of the Australian Christian Lobby, argues against proposals for a new national Human Rights Act or Charter…
Human rights is a very important part of the agenda we pursue in this place, as politicians like to call it.
(The Australian Christian Lobby has) been particularly active on issues of persecuted people groups overseas and refugees in this regard, and of course join with others in the very fundamental Christian concern for the vulnerable in society and issues of poverty overseas.
“From a faith perspective there is for me a real crisis of confidence in an instrument which purports to protect human rights and yet in both the act and, Victorian examples, given as possible models by charter proponents, the act explicitly excludes the right to life of a child before birth…”
But despite our concern for human rights we do not believe that a charter is the best way to protect them. We believe a charter inevitably places competing individual rights on a collision course for which the courts are decidedly inappropriate and ill-equipped to offer crash and medical assistance.
And I think we have heard enough from sufficiently well qualified and experienced people to demand that this view is not only reasonably held, but a serious reason to not go down this route and to seek other means of redressing human rights.
From a faith perspective there is for me a real crisis of confidence in an instrument which purports to protect human rights and yet in both the act and, Victorian examples, given as possible models by charter proponents, the act explicitly excludes the right to life of a child before birth…
The right to life is the most fundamental of rights, an inalienable right. The duty of governments to protect children before and after birth is explicit in international conventions to which we are signatories. But it didn’t suit the ideology of those who wrote or enacted these charters, they ignored this inherent incoherency, and would have to be totally in denial to even suggest that a charter can have any credibility having ignored so fundamental a right, for nearly 100,000 Australians per year.
A number of speakers have said well the sky hasn’t fallen in for anyone in Victoria with its charter of rights and responsibilities.
Well, for faith communities it very much looks like it’s going to.
The Christian faith, like I presume most others, is not only a private matter. In fact, I would argue it is not mainly a private matter.
Its public manifestation by Christians working their faith out in community is an obligation on Christians. It is the reason that the church has historically initiated so much of the welfare we see today and continues to bear a disproportionate load.
And for many of those organisations, being able to employ Christian staff to ensure that Christ is seen, in for instance, a caring ministry is essential, to that manifestation of their religion.
And more than that, this public manifestation of their religion is specifically protected by Article 18 of the UN Charter of International Civil and Political Rights.
But in Victoria those opposed to this international guaranteed right have used the charter to justify a review of all exemptions and exceptions to anti-discrimination laws by a number of organisations, but it appears, for some, particularly the church.
Those essential guarantees of freedom of religion now stand challenged and very likely to be seriously restricted – ironically because of a charter of rights and despite the international guarantees it purports to enshrine.
These two examples leave me with no confidence in a charter as a remedy to human rights abuses. Whatever your personal position on these two very much debated issues, I would ask you to see that they expose an inherent lack of integrity in a charter. And this in dealing with two fundamental human rights, guaranteed by international covenants where the integrity of the domestic instrument used should be strongest.
In fact they demonstrate that charters can become the instrument of abuse of others’ rights. In this case not a “criminals’ charter”, but an activists’ charter.
Well, shouldn’t I welcome that? After all I am one!
“Passion can seek unrealistic or un-sustainable solutions, or even, perhaps blinded by passion for a particular issue, deliberately or inadvertently lead us to interfere with the rights, even fundamental rights, of others.”
The work of activists, active citizenry as it is termed here is essential to expose and bring to public, media and government attention human rights abuses or shortfalls.
It is particularly so because I think we all, regardless of which side of debates we sit on, bring focus and passion to issues that a world largely distracted by materialism will remain in denial about, or indifferent to.
Whether they be my opponents, allies or colleagues, I am continually encouraged and humbled by the levels of passion and commitment of those who work as activists.
But our role is to expose human rights abuses and suggest solutions.
Activists, some working sacrificially from their home unsupported, seldom if ever have the resources to offer comprehensive or even correct solutions.
These must be tested by the analytical rigour that only governments generally have the resources to commit or fund. Certainly courts don’t have them.
There is also a downside to our passion in this industry.
Passion can seek unrealistic or un-sustainable solutions, or even, perhaps blinded by passion for a particular issue, deliberately or inadvertently lead us to interfere with the rights, even fundamental rights, of others.
Also, and again regardless of how pure their initial motivation, successful activists and activist organisations, always sure that a little more cash, a couple of more staff could see them realise their objectives are all very vulnerable to being captured by sectarian or partisan interests – both political and commercial.
Only the rigours of full, representative and public debate, best done in the forum we the people trudge to the polls each few years to create, can ensure the individual and public good of our suggestions, can resolve democratically particularly competing rights claims.
In summary on activists, we are important even essential to the protection of human rights. If I didn’t believe that I wouldn’t be doing this. But we should not be given the free kick that a charter gives to automatically impose our agendas on the basis of legal rather than the moral arguments, Morality is the framework in which human rights exist, not legalism.
But at the same time I work too close to politics to have unreserved faith in it and more generally government processes and motivations – there need to be additional checks and balances to ensure the absolute protection of fundamental rights and the honest balancing of others.
I’m very persuaded by Father Michael Tate’s suggestion to rejuvenate and strengthen the role of the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills.
Here is a man with the most outstanding credentials in experience of parliament and the pursuit of both international and domestic human rights. Someone who has reasonably unique, I would think, experience of both the highest and now grassroots end of this issue. I encourage the committee to give very serious consideration to his proposals.
In the same way I am persuaded by the obviously informed opinion of the Commonwealth Ombudsman, Professor John McMillan…that we have a plethora of agencies charged with identifying, highlighting and in some cases dealing with human rights issues. He listed them in a 2006 address as: ombudsmen, human rights and anti-discrimination commissioners, privacy and information commissioners, inspectors general of different kinds, administrative tribunals and auditors generals. A pretty impressive list.
But I do believe after an albeit very late and informal approach to the office of one ombudsman concerned with the rights of indigenous people, that they might need a much strengthened role, and particularly a more obvious and prominent role amongst those they seek to support.
First, if the advice I received is correct, it disturbs me that an ombudsman must wait for a complaint before pursuing an issue.
“We will not create a culture of dialogue if we establish a system and educate our younger generation in a culture of adversarial legal remedy. This is not going to establish a culture that promotes human rights, creates constructively active citizens, creates the better society I know we all here seek.”
In seeking to properly redress rights abuse or access in the indigenous culture, with its inherent reservedness even shyness, I believe the role should be more proactive.
Also, those others robbed of self respect through entrenched marginalisation or vulnerability, from my experience, also lack the confidence to initiate redress and would similarly be better served by a more proactive role for ombudsmen and the like.
I hasten to add though that my awareness of this is belated and inadequately confirmed, and I encourage the committee to confirm it and if found correct redress it.
Secondly, and this is where education and public awareness, specific topics of this session, come into play, it seems to me that we need to better advertise among marginal groups and at a lower priority society at large, the role of the ombudsmen and other instruments for the redress of rights infringement.
This needs to be comprehensively studied and professionally addressed by people skilled in marketing and communication finally education is important of course, but I would like to suggest that as so much has been said about the need to establish first a culture of human rights and also a human rights dialogue, that education needs to first meet these objectives.
We will not create a culture of dialogue if we establish a system and educate our younger generation in a culture of adversarial legal remedy. This is not going to establish a culture that promotes human rights, creates constructively active citizens, creates the better society I know we all here seek.
The most important ingredient for that to occur is the creation of a genuine, even passionate, internalised concern for the rights of the most vulnerable. This needs to be a major part of character development through formal school education and encouraged more generally by public leadership in Australia.
Religious instruction has traditionally played an important role in this.
For Christians, Christ’s example and edicts such as “loving your neighbour as yourself” establish a strong imperative for active citizenship in pursuit of human rights.
In this regard a charter fails any reasonable test, because instead of creating a culture of being concerned for other people’s rights, it risks creating an environment where my rights are most important. We have enough of that in society; we don’t need to legislate it.
This is an edited version of an address given by Jim Wallace to the National Human Rights Consultation public hearings in Canberra on 4th July. Mr Wallace is the managing director of the Australian Christian Lobby.
