National Human Rights Consultation Submission 

AGWW-7QTB9U 

Name: Jean-Paul Ameur 

Submission Text: 

Fairness and equality
 

 
If human rights are about equality and fairness for everyone, then equality
 
and fairness must be the rights which are protected in Australia. For
 
example GLBTIQ Australians need to have their right to equality and
 
fairness protected and not to be discriminated against because of their
 
sexuality.
 

 
GLBTIQ Australians are still marginalised in many parts of our society and
 
in their lives (the fact that the National Human Rights Consultation
 
Background Paper is silent on sexuality is testimony to that fact). By
 
comparison, it has become an unacceptable part of Australian society to
 
discriminate against a person because of their race (another innate trait).
 
A statement like ‘Black people should not be allowed to marry.’ is against
 
current community standards. Yet the same statement but for a single word
 
of difference ‘Gay people should not be allowed to marry.’ is spoken with
 
commonplace even in our Federal Parliament as an acceptable public policy.
 
The equality of GLBTIQ Australians is still not guaranteed by federal laws,
 
despite our knowledge that men and women in many countries overseas today
 
still face imprisonment, torture or death for being GLBTIQ.
 

 
In Australia, there have been many examples of common law rights to
 
equality and fairness being either legislated away or interpreted in policy
 
to the point of being ignored by the Federal Parliament. Howard’s Native
 
Title Act and so called ‘anti-terror’ legislation are vivid examples of
 
equality and fairness being legally ignored by the Federal Parliament.
 
Discrimination against GLBTIQ Australians was an arbitrary policy of the
 
Howard Government over the past decade.
 

 
There is an urgent need for the rights to equality and fairness to be
 
protected in Australian law. The importance of these human rights should
 
further be protected against political interference by which ever political
 
party is in power. A system which would require the agreement of the
 
majority of Australian States or Territories in order to amend any
 
federally legislated human rights to equality and fairness is highly
 
necessary.
 

 
The protection to equality and fairness would also mean that governments
 
have to practice more evidence based law making. Because in the past
 
governments have used ideological or asinine bases for law making. Having
 
the right to equality and fairness protected in federal law, and the
 
scrutiny of federal laws using the benchmark of equality and fairness (by
 
the courts) would prevent ideology being solely the basis for law making.
 
The claims and subsequent actions by both John Howard and Kevin Rudd to
 
prevent equality to same-sex couples to marry under Australian law because
 
of their christian beliefs are vivid examples of arbitrary and ideological
 
law making in Australia. These ‘christian beliefs’ are arbitrary because
 
they are not published anywhere for transparency and accountability.
 
Consequently and importantly these beliefs cannot be scrutinised by our
 
democratic institutions. In our democracy, Australians should not be
 
subject to laws which cannot be scrutinised. These beliefs are not evidence
 
based, yet are commonly used to legally deny equality and fairness to many
 
Australians.
 

 
Health
 

 
The right to adequate health care is important to protect under federal
 
law. The responsibilities which accompany this very important right should 

Page 1 of 2 


not continue to be ignored under federal law. Australians currently expect
 
a right to so-called universal health care. Unfortunately, this system
 
defines health very narrowly and ignores completely the responsibilities
 
that Australians must take for their health.
 

 
The World Health Organisation definition is 'Health is a state of complete
 
physical, mental and social well-being and not merely the absence of
 
disease or infirmity.' In Australia, the majority of our health care system
 
is focussed on the absence of disease or disease management. The system’s
 
necessary focus on disease management is a result of the competing
 
priorities between acute care services and preventative health (not just
 
the absence of illness) strategies, the former being the most politically
 
urgent to address.
 

 
Such focus on disease management has resulted in a system that requires no
 
responsibilities for individual Australians in relation to the right to
 
universal health care (albeit disease management care). For example, a
 
person in Australia has a right to full management of their adult onset
 
diabetes, yet has no required responsibilities to manage their lifestyle,
 
incurring an endless cost burden on the national health care system. The
 
lack of responsibilities for Australians who continue to demand a right to
 
adequate health care contributes to the huge economic costs of the
 
Australian health care system. Indeed the same lack of responsibilities are
 
evident across the Australian health care system in its management of the
 
five chronic disease priorities of asthma, cancer, diabetes, heart, stroke
 
and vascular disease and osteoarthritis, rheumatoid arthritis and
 
osteoporosis – all of which are lifestyle related illness in the published
 
literature.
 

 
Having responsibilities (there is currently only one – paying the
 
income-tested Medicare levy) for the right to adequate health care would
 
produce huge costs and social benefits for Australia. Promoting such
 
responsibilities could include the importance of eating a balanced diet
 
with plenty of fresh fruit and vegetables and drinking lots of water, a
 
minimum of processed foods and not too mention regular physical exercise.
 
There is an urgent need for promoting heath not just as the absence of
 
illness as Australians do not currently think that this is their
 
responsibility. I note that at the human rights public consultations held
 
in Canberra baked goods high in GI index, fat and sugar was offered to
 
attendees. There was water on the tables.
 

 
Responsibilities for our health (as defined by the WHO) would have the
 
effect of reducing the cost of the Australian health care system, and be
 
infinitely cheaper for all Australians. A diet high in fruits and
 
vegetables is much cheaper, healthier and tastier than the average
 
Australian diet (just ask the 232 million Indians who are vegetarians). A
 
responsibility for our health would reduce the ever increasing amounts
 
spent on acute and primary care, reduce the costs of the pharmaceutical
 
benefits scheme, reduce the costs of allied health care services. A
 
responsibility for our health would contribute of healthier lifestyles,
 
more productive populations, healthier ageing, reduced the costs of aged
 
care, and possibly even more productive older populations to contribute to
 
endless social benefits. Indeed the current right of adequate health care
 
as categorised by the Australian health care system continues to cost many
 
billions of dollars each year. These massive costs have not had the effect
 
of producing a healthier population. 

Page 2 of 2