Rights bill: toothless tiger

Dale Mills

The ACT became the first Australian state or territory to benefit from a rights bill on July 1, when the Human Rights Act came into effect. Every country in the developed world, except Australia, has some sort of bill of rights.

The purpose of the act is to enshrine into Australian law the protections that Australia has already agreed to under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The new law explicitly states that people should not be subject to torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment. It protects freedom of thought, conscience and religion, and provides for freedom of assembly, equality before the law and a right to privacy.

However the legislation is a toothless tiger. If a law is passed that is in breach of the Human Rights Act, the courts cannot invalidate the law, but only make a "declaration of incompatibility". If someone's human rights are breached as the result of an abusive law, there is no right to compensation.

Other rights, such as the right to housing, a job, clothing and education, are not mentioned in the act.

Prime Minister John Howard has consistently opposed a human rights act for Australia. According to the July 2 Financial Review, he told radio personality John Laws that he would be in favour of a "bill of responsibilities" — whatever that may mean. No other country has such a law.

From Green Left Weekly, July 7, 2004.

Visit the Green Left Weekly home page.

From GLW issue 588