• Home
• Report
• About the Consultation
• Who's who
• Terms of Reference
• About human rights in Australia
• Share your views
• Public submissions
• Public Hearings
• Consultation news
• Frequently Asked Questions
• Contact us

<< Chapter 3 | Chapter 5 >>

PART TWO
Rights and responsibilities in Australia

The Committee sought the community’s views in a variety of ways. This part of the report discusses the community’s responses to questions about which rights and responsibilities should be protected and promoted and whether the existing protections are adequate.

Chapter 4 outlines which human rights and responsibilities the community would like to see protected and promoted in Australia and Chapter 5 reviews the adequacy of existing protections for these rights in Australia.

4  Which rights and responsibilities?

Chapter 3 looks at the question of what human rights and responsibilities are. This chapter considers the question of which rights and responsibilities should be protected and promoted, which is part of the Committee’s terms of reference and was central to its Consultation with the Australian community.

The community perspective on human rights that emerged during the Consultation is discussed in Chapter 3. The degree to which these rights are understood by the community is particularly relevant to the question of which rights and responsibilities should be protected and promoted. It became apparent to the Committee that in the community there is no settled understanding of the term ‘human rights’. Dr John Tobin commented that, owing to the lack of effective human rights education in Australian schools, ‘there is a very poor understanding as to [the] nature, scope and content of human rights in Australia’.[1] Any lack of understanding of human rights will inevitably have an impact on the identification of ‘which rights’ are important. Dr Carol Steiner submitted:

This view was reinforced by the work of Colmar Brunton Social Research, which found that many focus group participants had difficulty conceiving of rights in an abstract sense—that is, in the absence of some concrete experience. Many participants equated rights with service delivery.[3] Similarly, many participants in community roundtables spoke in terms of their expectations of government in relation to regulation and service delivery, rather than in the language of specific rights.[4] Colmar Brunton emphasised that most focus group participants assumed that, because they experience a right daily, ‘it must therefore be sufficiently protected’.[5]

In dealing with this question, a number of submissions noted that any list of human rights to be protected and promoted should be non-exhaustive and sufficiently flexible to allow future amendment.[6] The Law Council of Australia took this a step further, submitting, ‘Australia should actively engage with the process of developing new human rights principles through its interaction with international human rights bodies’.[7]

It is worth noting that Consultation participants who identified rights and responsibilities requiring protection and promotion did not all agree on how this should be achieved. The majority advocated a Human Rights Act; others called for greater parliamentary scrutiny; others still suggested that existing protections of human rights are adequate. Chapters 6 to 14 outline the different options for better protection and promotion of the rights identified in this chapter, which summarises the main rights and responsibilities discussed during the Consultation.

Of the 35 014 submissions the Committee received, 24 per cent (8428) discussed which rights and responsibilities should be protected and promoted in Australia. Of these, 593 expressed support for the protection and promotion of all the rights contained in the international treaties to which Australia is a party; 2641 expressed support for the protection and promotion of civil and political rights; 1252 expressed support for the protection and promotion of economic, social and cultural rights; 520 expressed support for the protection and promotion of Indigenous rights; 245 expressed support for rights that are new or emerging, such as environmental rights; and 159 expressed support for the protection and promotion of responsibilities.

In relation to economic, social and cultural rights, 978 submissions expressed support for the protection and promotion of the right to an adequate standard of living; 689 expressed support for the right to education; 1183 expressed support for the right to the highest attainable standard of health; and 169 expressed support for the right to work.

4.1   Rights

All Australia’s obligations under international human rights law

In submissions and community roundtables a common response to the question of which rights and responsibilities should be protected and promoted was that Australia should protect and promote all the human rights reflected in its obligations under international human rights law.[8] This would include Australia’s obligations under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights 1966 and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights 1966, which, together with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights 1948, are known as the ‘International Bill of Rights’.

It would also include the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination 1965, the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women 1979, the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman and Degrading Treatment or Punishment 1984, the Convention on the Rights of the Child 1989 and the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities 2006.

First, those in favour of this approach argued that Australia is already obliged under international law to implement these obligations domestically.[9] The Public Interest Advocacy Centre submitted, ‘In providing domestic legislative protection of these rights, Australia would be doing no more than what is required of it under the terms of the international treaties that it has consented to abide by’.[10] Implementation of Australia’s international human rights obligations would help Australia comply with those obligations; for example, reporting to international treaty bodies could be simplified if domestic human rights protections were harmonised with our international obligations.

Second, the argument that Australia should protect and promote all of its obligations under international human rights law is supported by the view that rights are universal, indivisible, interdependent and interrelated.[11] On this view, there is no reason why we should privilege some of our international human rights obligations over others: all are equally important. The NSW Charter Group submitted, ‘Due to the interdependent relationship of the rights set out in these documents, no particular set of rights, such as political rights or cultural rights, should be favoured over another’.[12]

The Colmar Brunton Social Research report reinforced the notion that the traditional hierarchy of rights adopted in international human rights law is not shared by the general community. Instead, most people surveyed identified ‘survival’ rights—among them the right to basic amenities (food, clothing, water and shelter), the right to essential health care, freedom of speech and access to justice—as most important.[13]

Finally, it was argued that this approach would ensure that Australia’s international obligations have effect and meaning in the domestic context.[14] Implementing Australia’s international obligations would allow Australian courts—and ultimately the community—to benefit from the experience of other jurisdictions facing similar problems. The Gilbert + Tobin Centre of Public Law submitted that implementing Australia’s human rights obligations ‘would allow Australia to draw on the extensive human rights jurisprudence that has developed in international, regional and domestic courts and tribunals around the world’.[15] A participant in the Mt Gambier community roundtable said, ‘A lot of the hard work has already been done [with the development of international human rights instruments]; we just need to work out how to make them work in practice’.[16]

Some submitted that, at a minimum, Australia should ensure protection and promotion of the rights in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights—the International Bill of Rights.[17] Others submitted that only the rights included in the International Bill of Rights should be protected and promoted[18]; the Australian Christian Lobby commented, ‘Any attempt to deviate beyond the scope of these covenants to recognise an ever increasing array of “rights” will weaken the fundamental nature of these covenant rights’.[19]

Those advocating that Australia protect and promote its obligations under international human rights law acknowledged that, since many of these rights were formulated some time ago, some might require modification so that they reflect contemporary values and the community’s aspirations. For example, the Victorian Bar submitted, ‘Consideration should be given to … a non discriminatory formulation of the right to marry’.[20]

It was recognised that some of Australia’s international human rights obligations might not be suitable for domestic implementation. For example, the Victorian Consultation Committee expressed concern that, in the absence of settled precedent about the content of the right to self-determination, there might be unintended consequences if that right were included in the Charter of Rights And Responsibilities Act 2006 (Vic).[21] The committee suggested that inclusion of the right could be considered in a future review of the Victorian charter. In addition, some rights might be excluded for practical reasons; for example, Australia might choose not to implement its obligation domestically under the second optional protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights to abolish the death penalty on the basis it has already done so.

Civil and political rights

Many Consultation participants supported the promotion and protection of civil and political rights in Australia.[22] Civil and political rights are those rights and freedoms ‘necessary to protect individuals from state power and abuse of that power and that enable individuals to fully participate in the civil and political affairs of the state’.[23] They include the right to life, the right not to be subjected to torture or ill-treatment, the right not to be held in slavery, the right to liberty and security of the person, the right to freedom of movement, equality before the law, the right to a fair trial, the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion, the right to peaceful assembly, the right to freedom of association, the right to marry and to found a family, the right to take part in public affairs, and the right for minorities to enjoy their own culture, religion and language.

The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights provides a useful summary of civil and political rights and was often used as a reference point by people advocating the protection and promotion of civil and political rights. It also includes the right to an ‘effective remedy’ for a violation of civil or political rights.[24]

Some in favour of this approach argued that only civil and political rights should be protected.[25] For example, Timothy Ginnane SC submitted, ‘Since 1948 much of the world has accepted the importance of providing public protection of civil and political rights’, so it is appropriate that Australia should protect and promote the rights contained in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.[26] Ron Merkel QC and Alistair Pound acknowledged the arguments in favour of economic, social and cultural rights but concluded, ‘The most desirable, and practically achievable, approach at this time is to limit [a Human Rights] Act to the protection of civil and political rights’.[27] Similarly, the Victorian Government recommended that the same civil and political rights provided for in the Victorian charter should be protected at the federal level initially, with scope for review at a later stage.[28]

Some submissions favoured an even narrower conception of civil and political rights. For example, Professor Helen Irving suggested that the only rights that should be protected from legislative erosion and enforced by the courts are those ‘rights involved in the legal process and the enforcement of law: rights arising in the course of the arrest, detention, and trial of individuals’.[29]

Others in favour of protecting civil and political rights argued that these rights do require protection but not to the exclusion of other rights.[30] The Gilbert + Tobin Centre of Public Law submitted, ‘Blanket prioritisation of civil and political rights over economic, social and cultural rights is too arbitrary and does not adequately respond to the particular needs of the Australian community’.[31] Women’s Health West submitted, ‘A federal charter must reflect the indivisibility and interdependence of civil and political rights and economic, social and cultural rights by including both sets of rights’.[32] The Victorian Council of Social Service submitted that a model protecting only civil and political rights is not only ‘limited’ but ‘potentially dangerous’ in that the act of balancing rights ‘becomes skewed’. [33]

Civil and political rights were considered to be of particular importance to some groups in the community. For example, the right to non-discrimination, the right to freedom from torture and ill-treatment and the right to liberty and security of the person might be of special relevance for people with mental illness[34]; the right to non-discrimination, the right to freedom from torture and the right to a fair trial were considered especially relevant for prisoners[35]; the right to freedom of association has special relevance for workers[36]; and the right to non-discrimination and the right to marry were viewed as particularly important for same-sex couples.[37]

A civil and political right that received considerable attention in submissions and community roundtables was the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion.[38] The Anglican Church of Australia emphasised the importance of protecting ‘the right to freedom of religion, including the right to change one’s religion, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest one’s religion in teaching, practice, worship and observance …’[39] The Seventh-day Adventist Church submitted:

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints described fundamental religious rights as including:

Gwenneth Compton commented, ‘Any new law … needs to allow people to critique other ideologies, world views and religions’.[42] It is of note that organisations and individuals supporting the protection and promotion of freedom of religion adopted diverse positions on the adequacy of existing protections for that right and on proposals for further protection of that right.

The Committee also received a number of submissions focusing on the right to privacy[43], which was also raised as a particular concern at a number of community roundtables.[44] There is anxiety about whether existing protections for privacy are adequate.

Economic, social and cultural rights

A large number of respondents to the question of which rights and responsibilities should be protected and promoted argued the case for economic, social and cultural rights.[45] These rights ‘protect the basic living conditions that are necessary in order for human beings to live a life of dignity and freedom’.[46] Among them are the right to work, the right to form and join trade unions, the right to social security, the right to an adequate standard of living, the right to the highest attainable standard of health, the right to education, and the right to take part in cultural life. The International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights provides a useful summary of economic, social and cultural rights and was often used as a reference point by advocates of the protection and promotion of these rights. The covenant includes a cross-cutting right to be able to exercise economic, social and cultural rights without discrimination on one of the grounds specified.[47]

Mintabie clinic

First, participants taking this approach argued that the indivisibility and interdependence of human rights require that economic, social and cultural rights be protected and promoted.[48] The Human Rights Law Resource Centre submitted, ‘The arbitrary division of rights makes no sense to the rights holder and does not respond to the aspirations or needs of people, particularly people experiencing marginalisation or disadvantage’.[49] Some submissions noted the inherent connection between civil and political rights and economic, social and cultural rights. For example, protecting the right to life of a woman who is subjected to domestic violence (which involves a civil and political right) might also require that government ensure the right to adequate housing (an economic, social and cultural right).[50] Similarly, the right to privacy has little meaning in the absence of the right to an adequate standard of living.[51]

Second, proponents of the inclusion of economic, social and cultural rights argued that these rights are of great importance to the Australian community—especially to people living in poverty.[52] The Law Council of Australia submitted, ‘Some of the most disturbing incidences of rights violations in Australia, such as the comparatively low life expectancy of Indigenous Australians and the growing homelessness epidemic, concern the denial of economic, social or cultural rights’.[53] Similarly, Professor Hilary Charlesworth, Professor Andrew Byrne and Renuka Thilagaratnam submitted that economic, social and cultural rights ‘are the human rights that often have the greatest relevance and meaning for the community, particularly for those most disadvantaged’.[54] Katharine Young noted, ‘It is clear that the concerns met by access to the resources of housing, education, social security, water and food are all manifestly appropriate for Australians’.[55]

In support of this view, the Colmar Brunton report highlighted the tendency for Australians to give priority to ‘survival’ rights—such as the right to food, water and clothing and the right to health and medical care.[56] For example, 96 per cent of surveyed respondents considered the right to sufficient food, water and clothing an important or very important right; similarly, 95 per cent thought the right to essential health care was an important or very important right. These rights accord closely with economic, social and cultural rights such as the right to an adequate standard of living (including adequate food, clothing and housing)[57] and the right to enjoy the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health.[58]

Finally, those in favour of this approach argued that economic, social and cultural rights are justiciable; that is, they are rights that can be determined by a court.[59] In recognition of the potential for economic, social and cultural rights to have public resource implications, international law requires only ‘progressive realisation’ of those rights.[60] The Public Interest Law Clearing House submitted, ‘Given that [economic, social and cultural] rights require only progressive and not immediate realisation, their inclusion in a Human Rights Act will not overburden the government’.[61] Katharine Young submitted:

The South African approach was identified as an option for justiciable economic and social rights.[63] That nation’s Constitution provides that the government must ‘take reasonable legislative and other measures, within its available resources, to achieve the progressive realisation’ of the rights of access to health care services, sufficient food and water, social security and adequate housing.[64] The Committee heard that the South African courts have developed a form of ‘reasonableness’ review of government action when interpreting and applying these rights.[65]

Some submissions noted the argument that these rights can be protected indirectly through the interpretation of civil and political rights.[66] For example, it was noted that in Canada the civil and political rights to life, liberty and the security of the person have been used to protect the right to the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health and the right to adequate housing.[67] There was, however, a concern that this would result in ad hoc and limited protection for some of these rights.[68]

An alternative approach, put forward by the Australian Human Rights Commission, would be to ensure protection and promotion of a core minimum set of economic, social and cultural rights. This might include, for example, the right to work, the right to adequate housing, the right to the highest attainable standard of health and the right to education on the basis that these rights ‘touch the substance of people’s everyday lives’.[69] Core minimum rights could be stated initially and expanded on at a later date.[70] Liberty Victoria submitted that ‘at least’ basic economic, social and cultural rights ‘such as the rights to health, education, social security, housing and an adequate standard of living’ should be protected and promoted.[71]

Chapter 14 discusses further the possible inclusion of economic, social and cultural rights in a federal Human Rights Act and the various options for enforcing these rights under such legislation.

Economic, social and cultural rights are of particular importance to some groups in the Australian community. The right to adequate housing, the right to an adequate standard of living, the right to the highest attainable standard of health, and the right to education are of particular importance to Indigenous Australians[72]; the right to education, the right to adequate housing and the right to the highest attainable standard of health are especially important for people living in rural and remote Australia.[73] A considerable number of submissions focused in particular on the right to adequate housing, which is of special relevance for those who are homeless.[74]

In contrast, a considerable number of submissions argued that economic, social and cultural rights should not be given legal protection in Australia.[75] In most instances this was a specific objection to any proposal that would allow judges to make determinations relating to economic, social and cultural rights.[76] Generally, the reasons given for this view were that parliament—not the courts—should make decisions about social and fiscal policy[77] and that economic, social and cultural rights are vague and not amenable to judicial adjudication.[78]

Associate Professor Anne Twomey submitted, ‘The inclusion of economic and social rights in an Australian charter of rights is inappropriate and, depending on how they apply, potentially constitutionally invalid’.[79] The Church and Nation Committee Presbyterian Church of Victoria submitted, ‘Many of the rights commonly characterised as economic and cultural rights represent equally worthy and laudable aspirations. However, we consider that to characterise these goals as rights is absurd’.[80]

The rights of special and vulnerable groups

Some people argued that the rights of special and vulnerable groups in the Australian community deserve particular attention.

Indigenous Australians

A large number of submissions called for protection and promotion of the rights of Indigenous Australians.[81] Community roundtables also emphasised the need to protect Indigenous rights.[82] These rights were said to include the right of Indigenous peoples to self-determination[83], the right to practise and revitalise their cultures[84], and the right to be consulted before the approval of projects affecting their lands, territories or other resources.[85] Numerous submissions referred to the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples as providing a useful summary of indigenous rights. A number of civil, political, social, economic and cultural rights were also said to be of particular significance to Indigenous Australians[86], among them the right to the highest attainable standard of health, the right to adequate housing, the right to non-discrimination, and access to justice.[87] Submissions also cited the Victorian charter, which refers specifically to Indigenous rights in the preamble: ‘Human rights have a special importance for the Aboriginal people of Victoria, as descendants of Australia’s first people, with their diverse spiritual, social, cultural and economic relationship with their traditional lands and waters’.[88]

The Chair’s smoking ceremony at Santa Teresa

The Victorian charter also provides that Indigenous people have distinct cultural rights and must not be denied the right to enjoy their identity and culture, maintain and use their language, maintain kinship ties, and maintain their distinctive spiritual, material and economic relationship with the land and waters and other resources with which they have a connection under traditional laws and customs.[89] Neither the Victorian charter nor the ACT Human Rights Act 2004 protects the right to self-determination.

The Wirringa Baiya Aboriginal Women’s Legal Centre submitted, ‘A national Human Rights Act should … recognise Indigenous people in its preamble. It should also have a separate category dealing with Indigenous rights to land, language, culture and self-determination’.[90] The NSW Reconciliation Council argued for specific protections for Indigenous rights, including the right to a distinct status and culture, the right to enjoyment of culture and use and preservation of languages, recognition and protection of traditional lands, and the right to self-determination.[91] The Aboriginal Family Violence Prevention and Legal Service Victoria submitted, ‘It is critical that the rights of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders as the First Australians are protected and promoted in a framework determined by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders’.[92]

Children and young people

A significant number of submissions advocated the protection and promotion of rights that apply to children and young people[93], as did participants at community roundtables.[94] Among the rights referred to were the right of a child who is capable of forming his or her own views to participate in decisions affecting him or her[95] and the principle that the best interests of the child should be a primary consideration in all actions concerning children.[96] The Convention on the Rights of the Child provides a useful summary of rights specific to children and young people and was often used as a reference point by supporters of the protection and promotion of these rights.

Youthlaw submitted that, recognising the limitations of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, ‘rights specific to children and young people should be protected so as to reflect and address the special needs and experiences of children and young people’.[97] Similarly, the Youth Justice Coalition submitted, ‘The Australian government should ensure that the interests and vulnerabilities of children and young people are protected and promoted’.[98] Several submissions noted that these rights are of particular relevance to children and young people in the care of the state[99], and it was argued that they are also important for children and young people who come into contact with police and the juvenile justice system. [100]

Women

Many submissions highlighted the need for protection and promotion of the rights of women[101], a subject also raised at community roundtables.[102] The rights of women were said to include the right to gender equality[103], the right to be free from violence against women[104] and the right to the highest attainable standard of health (including reproductive health).[105]

WomenSpeak Alliance stressed that ‘the government has the capacity now to address specific rights issues affecting women that have already been identified’.[106] It urged government to consider how central elements of ‘women’s policy machinery’ (integrating a gender perspective in all government operations) might be reinstated.[107] The Women’s Legal Service in Victoria recommended the inclusion of a right to gender equality based on the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, to ‘ensure that laws and policies are guaranteed a gendered perspective when being developed and implemented’.[108] The rights of women in prison were also emphasised.[109]

People with disabilities

The Committee received many submissions advocating protection and promotion of the rights of people with disabilities.[110] The subject was also raised regularly at community roundtables.[111] These rights were said to include the right to have access to the physical environment, transport and information[112]; freedom from exploitation, violence and abuse[113]; and the right to live independently and be included in the community.[114]

The Australian Federation of Disability Organisations noted the particular problems people with disabilities face in relation to their civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights, commenting that people with disabilities ‘often experience significant disadvantage in achieving social participation and even personal safety and self determination’.[115] The Disability Discrimination Legal Service submitted:

One participant at a community roundtable noted the particular difficulties of people with disabilities living in rural and remote Australia, who often have to travel great distances just to get a disability assessment.[117] Another participant wanted to see ‘people with disability enjoy the same rights as those without disability … The most basic civil right, the right to vote, is not available to many people with disability’.[118] For example, people who are blind or vision impaired, as well as those with disabilities that affect their mobility, can have difficulty exercising their right to vote.

People with mental illness

A significant number of submissions discussed the rights of people with mental illness[119], and the subject was also raised at numerous community roundtables.[120] These rights were said to include the right to non-discrimination[121], freedom from torture and ill-treatment[122], the right to liberty and security of the person (including freedom from arbitrary detention)[123] and the right to the highest attainable standard of mental health.[124] The Mental Health Legal Centre submitted:

Access to mental health treatment and services was raised as a problem at many community roundtables.[126]

Asylum seekers and refugees

Many submissions highlighted the rights of asylum seekers and refugees[127], and the subject was also raised at many community roundtables.[128] The rights of asylum seekers and refugees were seen to include the right to liberty and security of the person (including freedom from arbitrary detention)[129], the right to legal representation and a translator[130], and basic economic, social and cultural rights such as the right to work, the right to the highest attainable standard of health, and the right to social security.[131]

The Hotham Mission Asylum Seeker Project submitted:

At the public hearings Mustafa Najib described his experiences as an asylum seeker from Afghanistan. He was rescued by the Tampa and then detained on Nauru, and he said he had no access to legal representation during his detention.[133]

Ethnic, religious and linguistic minorities

Ms Maha Krayem Abdo OAM speaks of the experiences of Australian Muslim women

A number of submissions focused on the rights of ethnic minorities.[134] For example, the Federation of Ethnic Communities’ Councils of Australia noted rights of particular importance to those from diverse cultural, linguistic and faith backgrounds living in Australia—for example, the right to cultural and linguistic freedom and the right to non-discrimination.[135]

A number of submissions focused on the rights of religious minorities.[136] The rights of non-religious people were also discussed in submissions and at community roundtables.[137] For example, the Australian Baha’i Community submitted:

While members of our own community report only occasional and isolated incidents of religious discrimination in Australia, we recognise that for some other communities, such discrimination has become more frequent and widespread in the past ten years.[138]

A number of submissions focused on the rights of linguistic minorities.[139] For example, Aboriginal Resource and Development Services submitted, ‘The right to the free assistance of a [National Accreditation Authority for Translators and Interpreters]–accredited professional-level interpreter for Indigenous people who do not speak English as a first language should be protected and promoted as a human right’.[140]

The elderly

A number of submissions and community roundtables discussed the rights of the elderly.[141] These rights were said to include the right not to be subjected to ill-treatment[142] and the right to respect for private life and family.[143] For example, Seniors Rights Victoria submitted:

The dignity of the elderly was also raised during the Colmar Brunton devolved consultation. For example, one participant commented, ‘In nursing homes the use of infantile talk reserved for small children and pets, diminishes dignity’.[145] Another participant commented, ‘Ageism is the inability/refusal to recognise the rights and dignity of older people’.[146]

Gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender and intersex

A significant number of submissions and community roundtables raised the subject of the rights of gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender and intersex people.[147] These rights were said to include the right not to be discriminated against on the basis of sex, gender identity or sexual orientation[148], the right to the highest attainable standard of health[149], the right to privacy and family[150] and the right to freedom of expression.[151] Many groups asserted that there are only limited protections against discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, gender identity or intersex status in Australia.[152] For example, the Tasmanian Coming Out Proud Program submitted:

Workers

A number of submissions and community roundtables discussed workers’ rights.[154] ‘Fundamental’ workers’ rights were said to include ‘freedom of association and the rights to organise and to bargain collectively … freedom from discrimination in employment (including equal remuneration for work of equal value) … and freedom from harmful child labour’.[155] The ACTU submitted:

New and emerging rights

Some submissions proposed that new and emerging rights should be protected and promoted in Australia. In international law the distinction is sometimes made between ‘first-generation’ rights (civil and political rights), ‘second-generation’ rights (economic, social and cultural rights) and ‘third-generation rights’ (group or collective rights, such as the right to social and economic development and the right to a healthy environment).

The new and emerging right that received most attention in submissions and at community roundtables was the third-generation right to an environment that is not harmful to health or wellbeing, together with the related right to have the environment protected.[157] The Australian Network of Environmental Defenders Offices supported ‘the inclusion of a “third generation” right, namely, the right to a clean and healthy environment’, favouring ‘a stand-alone right/responsibility, on the basis of growing support at international law, and in numerous domestic jurisdictions, for such a model’.[158] In addition, a number of submissions supported a reference to ‘the responsibility to intergenerational equity’,[159] which the Australian Network of Environmental Defenders Offices described thus:

The Public Interest Advocacy Centre submitted that third-generation rights:

Colmar Brunton Social Research found that 95 per cent of survey respondents considered the right to a clean and healthy natural environment important or very important.

Other rights

Other discrete rights that do not fall into a category discussed thus far were raised in submissions and at community roundtables. For example, the Scarlet Alliance proposed a ‘right to equal treatment under the law, regardless of HIV status’.[162] A number of submissions specifically opposed protection of the right to property[163]; others supported protection of this right.[164]

Dr Carol Steiner outlined a range of rights not commonly mentioned—among them ‘the right to freedom from a painful death’, ‘the right to demand family friendly working hours’ and ‘the right to free speech for public servants and bureaucrats’.[165]

The Committee received a number of submissions dealing with the rights of victims of crime.[166] For example, Michael O’Connell, the South Australian Commissioner for Victims’ Rights, submitted:

4.2   Responsibilities

During the Consultation the discussion of responsibilities covered both what are traditionally called ‘obligations’ in international law (that is, enforceable obligations owed by States to individuals) and the responsibilities individuals have alongside their rights. A number of potential bearers of ‘responsibility’ were identified, among them the following:

• individuals, corporations, non-government organisations and other social groups—being responsible for respecting and refraining from breaching the rights of others, protecting the rights of others, and promoting human rights
• the State, including public authorities and organisations performing a public function—being responsible for respecting and refraining from breaching the rights of people in the State (not just citizens), respecting and refraining from breaching the rights of people beyond the State’s borders, protecting the rights of people, promoting human rights, and providing access to remedies for individual human rights violations.

Many submissions and community roundtables recognised that each one of us should take responsibility for the rights of others.[168] For example, the Law Institute of Victoria submitted, ‘All persons—whether individuals or public or private entities—have a responsibility to observe human rights’. The Australian Human Rights Commission submitted, ‘It is important to recognise that, just as all people are entitled to enjoy all human rights, all people also have responsibilities to respect the rights of others’.[169] Some submissions also noted that the ability to exercise one’s human rights must be balanced against the ability of others to exercise their rights.[170] In the focus groups conducted by Colmar Brunton Social Research it was generally agreed that human rights need to go hand in hand with associated responsibilities. [171]

The Committee learnt that many participants do not want an individualistic society where people are self-centredly focused on their ‘rights’, without thinking of the greater good and our ‘responsibilities’. Timothy Ginnane SC submitted:

The idea that individuals should be encouraged to act responsibly towards each other was an important aspect of what many Consultation participants raised with the Committee. Most participants thought it just as important to encourage an ethos in which we all take responsibility for protecting and promoting the human rights of others as it is to have our human rights protected. As Bill Stefaniak, Appeals President of the ACT Civil and Administrative Tribunal, has remarked, ‘The rule of law and human rights depend on the readiness of everyone in our society to act justly’.[173]

A small number of submissions proposed that responsibilities be treated in a manner equal to, or more important than, rights.[174] For example, Adrien Adair submitted, ‘It is a self indulgent and distorted exercise to be focussing on individual rights, without at the same time addressing with equal passion, individual responsibilities’.[175] Brian Schroeder submitted:

On the other hand, a significant number of submissions opposed the recognition, protection or promotion of responsibilities on the basis that the responsibilities are not legally enforceable[177], are not reflected in international law[178], and raise the dangerous prospect of rights contingent on responsibilities.[179] For example, Michael Pearce SC submitted that he was ‘doubtful of the need to consider the protection and promotion of responsibilities along with rights’ since the ‘common law and statute books are replete with legal responsibilities’.[180] Dr Ben Saul noted:

Finally, a number of submissions proposed that responsibilities be recognised but not protected or promoted in the same way as rights. For example, submissions generally did not support the introduction of legally binding responsibilities.[182] In particular, the Committee heard concerns that the inclusion of ‘responsibilities’ could create an impression that rights are contingent on ‘good citizenship’.[183] There was, however, some support for references to responsibilities being included in the title, preamble or objects provision of a Human Rights Act.[184] Responsibilities could also form part of an education or community awareness campaign about rights and responsibilities.[185] According to Professor George Williams, this would send:

4.3   The Committee’s findings

The Committee heard a range of views about which rights and responsibilities should be protected and promoted. Some people suggested that all of Australia’s obligations under international law should be reflected in domestic human rights protections; others focused on civil and political rights. The question of how economic, social and cultural rights should be protected was somewhat controversial. The rights of special and vulnerable groups in the Australian community received particular attention. Finally, a number of new and emerging rights, such as the right to a clean environment, were referred to.

The Committee finds as follows:

• There is strong support for the notion that Australia should protect and promote all the rights contained in the international human rights treaties to which it is a party.
• Protection and promotion of civil and political rights in Australia is important to the Australian community.
• Protection and promotion of economic, social and cultural rights is important to the community, and the way they are protected and promoted has a major impact on the lives of many Australians. The right to adequate housing, the right to the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health, and the right to education are particular priorities for the community.
• Although there is support for better recognition of the responsibilities of government and individuals in relation to protection and promotion of human rights, most people feel that responsibilities need not be codified into law.

<< Chapter 3 | Chapter 5 >>

[1]       J Tobin, Submission.

[2]       C Steiner, Submission.

[3]       Colmar Brunton Social Research, National Human Rights Consultation—community research report (2009).

[4]       For example, Tennant Creek, Community Roundtable; Alice Springs, Community Roundtable; Katherine, Community Roundtable; Mt Isa, Community Roundtable; Charleville, Community Roundtable.

[5]       Colmar Brunton Social Research, National Human Rights Consultation—community research report (2009).

[6]       Federation of Community Legal Centres Victoria, Submission; Australian Human Rights Commission, Submission.

[7]       Law Council of Australia, Submission.

[8]       For example, Law Institute of Victoria, Submission; Public Interest Advocacy Centre, Submission; NSW Charter Group, Submission; Public Interest Law Clearing House, Submission; Intellectual Disability Rights Service, Submission; Women’s Health Victoria, Submission; Federation of Ethnic Communities’ Councils of Australia, Submission; Law Council of Australia, Submission; Amnesty International Australia, Submission; Australian Council for International Development, Submission; Australian Human Rights Commission, Submission; Australian Lawyers for Human Rights, Submission; Federation of Community Legal Centres Victoria, Submission; Human Rights Law Resource Centre (Human Rights Act for All Australians), Submission; Uniting Church WA Synod Social Justice Board, Submission; Cabramatta Community Centre, Submission; Queensland Council for Civil Liberties, Submission; E Evatt, Submission; Centre for Human Rights Education, Submission; Queanbeyan (1), Community Roundtable; Yirrkala, Community Roundtable; Perth (1), Community Roundtable; Broken Hill, Community Roundtable; Newcastle, Community Roundtable; Melbourne (3), Community Roundtable; Sydney (2), Community Roundtable; Canberra, Community Roundtable; Wollongong, Community Roundtable.

[9]       For example, Law Institute of Victoria, Submission; Gilbert + Tobin Centre of Public Law (E Santow), Submission; Public Interest Advocacy Centre, Submission, NSW Charter Group, Submission, ACT Human Rights Commission, Submission; Human Rights Law Resource Centre (Human Rights Act for All Australians), Submission; Law Council of Australia, Submission.

[10]     Public Interest Advocacy Centre, Submission.

[11]     Amnesty International Australia, Submission; Women’s Legal Services NSW, Submission; Edmund Rice Centre for Justice & Community Education, Submission; Victorian Council of Social Service, Submission; Family Planning NSW, Submission; Human Rights Law Resource Centre (Human Rights Act for All Australians), Submission; Australian Council of Social Service, Submission; Law Council of Australia, Submission; Gold Coast Advocacy, Submission; J Rostant, Submission; E Tadros, Submission; J Tobin, Submission; A Edwards and R McCorquodale, Submission. See also Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action; and Chapter 3.

[12]     NSW Charter Group, Submission.

[13]     Colmar Brunton Social Research, National Human Rights Consultation—community research report (2009).

[14]     For example, Human Rights Law Resource Centre (Human Rights Act for All Australians), Submission; Federation of Community Legal Centres, Submission; ACT Human Rights Commission, Submission.

[15]     Gilbert + Tobin Centre of Public Law (E Santow), Submission.

[16]     Mt Gambier, Community Roundtable.

[17]     For example, Australian Council of Social Service, Submission; Australian Human Rights Commission, Submission; Human Rights Council of Australia, Submission; M Crock and T Freeman, Submission; Gilbert + Tobin Centre of Public Law (E Santow), Submission; Castan Centre for Human Rights Law, Submission; A Edwards and R McCorquodale, Submission; A Howard, Submission.

[18]     Anglican Church of Australia General Synod, Submission; Australian Christian Lobby, Submission.

[19]     Australian Christian Lobby, Submission.

[20]        Victorian Bar, Submission. It should be noted that a non-discriminatory construction of the right to marry may be open on the terms in which it is framed in the ICCPR.

[21]     This example is cited in Human Rights Law Resource Centre (Human Rights Act for All Australians), Submission.

[22]     For example, Human Rights Law Resource Centre (Human Rights Act for All Australians), Submission; Gilbert + Tobin Centre of Public Law (E Santow), Submission; Victorian Council of Social Service, Submission; Australian Human Rights Commission, Submission; T Ginnane, Submission; R Merkel and A Pound, Submission; Victorian Government, Submission; Anglican Church of Australia General Synod, Submission; Australian Press Council, Submission; S Ozdowski, Submission; Sydney (3), Community Roundtable; Darwin (1), Community Roundtable; Melbourne (3), Community Roundtable.

[23]     Public Interest Law Clearing House, Submission.

[24]     International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, art. 2(3).

[25]     For example, T Ginnane, Submission; R Merkel and A Pound, Submission; Victorian Government, Submission; H Irving, Submission; Australian Press Council, Submission; S Ozdowski, Submission.

[26]     T Ginnane, Submission.

[27]     R Merkel and A Pound, Submission.

[28]     Victorian Government, Submission.

[29]     H Irving, Submission.

[30]     For example, Gilbert + Tobin Centre of Public Law (E Santow), Submission; Victorian Council of Social Service, Submission; Women’s Health West, Submission.

[31]     Gilbert + Tobin Centre of Public Law (E Santow), Submission.

[32]     Women’s Health West, Submission.

[33]     Victorian Council of Social Service, Submission.

[34]     Mental Health Legal Centre, Submission.

[35]     Prisoners’ Legal Service, Submission; Sisters Inside, Submission.

[36]     Australian Council of Trade Unions, Submission; Shop, Distributive and Allied Employees’ Association, Submission.

[37]     Australian Marriage Equality, Submission; Tasmanian Gay and Lesbian Rights Group, Submission.

[38]     For example, Seventh-day Adventist Church, Submission; Anglican Church of Australia General Synod, Submission; Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, Submission; Church and Nation Committee Presbyterian Church of Victoria, Submission; Australian Christian Lobby, Submission; Baptistcare, Submission; R Fisher, Submission; B Chigwidden, Submission; C Le Page, Submission; C Wilks, Submission; J Myers, Submission; G Doust, Submission; P Flynn, Submission; A van der Linden, Submission; M Hood, Submission.

[39]     Anglican Church of Australia General Synod, Submission.

[40]     Seventh-day Adventist Church, Submission.

[41]     Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, Submission.

[42]     G Compton, Submission.

[43]     For example, Office of the Victorian Privacy Commissioner, Submission; Australian Privacy Foundation, Submission.

[44]     For example, Darwin (1), Community Roundtable; Broken Hill, Community Roundtable; Mt Gambier, Community Roundtable; Cronulla (1), Community Roundtable.

[45]     For example, Human Rights Law Resource Centre (Human Rights Act for All Australians), Submission; Australian Human Rights Commission, Submission; Australian Council of Social Service, Submission; Victorian Bar, Submission; Australian Lawyers for Human Rights, Submission; Public Interest Law Clearing House, Submission; P Mathew, Submission; Jesuit Social Services, Submission; G Williams, Submission; Human Rights Council of Australia, Submission; Queensland Council of Social Service, Submission; Sydney Food Fairness Alliance, Submission; B Schokman, Submission; Women’s Health Loddon Mallee, Submission; A Cody, Submission; V Tee, Submission; S Walker, Submission; B Henderson, Submission; R Brydon, Submission; L Baker, Submission; Darwin (1), Community Roundtable; Perth (2), Community Roundtable; Melbourne (3), Community Roundtable; Burnie, Community Roundtable; Newcastle, Community Roundtable; Geelong, Community Roundtable.

[46]     Public Interest Law Clearing House, Submission.

[47]     International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights art. 2(2).

[48]     For example, Law Council of Australia, Submission; A Sathanapallay, Submission; Human Rights Law Resource Centre (Human Rights Act for All Australians), Submission; Australian Human Rights Commission, Submission ; Australian Council of Social Service, Submission; Women’s Health Victoria, Submission.

[49]     Human Rights Law Resource Centre (Human Rights Act for All Australians), Submission.

[50]     Federation of Community Legal Services Victoria, Submission.

[51]     Tenants’ Union of Tasmania, Submission.

[52]     For example, Law Council of Australia, Submission; Human Rights Law Resource Centre (Human Rights Act for All Australians), Submission.

[53]     Law Council of Australia, Submission.

[54]     RegNET (H Charlesworth, A Byrne and R Thilagaratnam), Submission.

[55]     K Young, Submission.

[56]     Colmar Brunton Social Research, National Human Rights consultation—community research report (2009).

[57]     ICESCR art. 11.

[58]     ICESCR art. 12.

[59]     For example, Human Rights Law Resource Centre (Human Rights Act for All Australians), Submission; Gilbert + Tobin Centre of Public Law (E Santow), Submission; R Young, Submission; Mallesons, Submission; J Debeljak, Submission; B Saul, Submission; Women’s Health Victoria, Submission; ACT Human Rights Commission, Submission; Australian Council of Social Service, Submission; Castan Centre for Human Rights Law, Submission; Queensland Council of Social Service, Submission.

[60]     See, for example, Human Rights Council of Australia, Submission.

[61]     Public Interest Law Clearing House, Submission.

[62]     K Young, Submission.

[63]     For example, Australian Human Rights Commission, Submission; Australian Lawyers for Human Rights, Submission; Australian Human Rights Centre, Submission; Gilbert + Tobin Centre of Public Law (E Santow), Submission; Law Institute of Victoria, Submission. See also Arthur Chaskalson, ‘How about a bill of rights?’ (Tony Fitzgerald Lecture, The Griffith University, 28 July 2009).

[64]     Constitution of the Republic of South Africa.

[65]     See Australian Human Rights Commission, Submission; Australian Centre for Human Rights, Submission.

[66]     R Young, Submission; Australian Human Rights Commission, Submission; Human Rights Law Resource Centre (Human Rights Act for All Australians), Submission.

[67]     Australian Human Rights Commission, Submission.

[68]     Consultation Committee for a Proposed WA Human Rights Act, A WA Human Rights Act: report of the Consultation Committee for a Proposed WA Human Rights Act (2007), cited in Australian Human Rights Commission, Submission.

[69]     Joint Committee on Human Rights, A Bill of Rights for the UK? (2008), cited in Australian Human Rights Commission, Submission.

[70]     It should be noted that the commission’s preferred approach was that a Human Rights Act should ‘explicitly recognise and protect the civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights in the ICCPR and ICESCR’—Australian Human Rights Commission, Submission.

[71]     Liberty Victoria, Submission.

[72]     Close the Gap Campaign Steering Committee for Indigenous Health Equality, Submission; Wirringa Baiya Aboriginal Women’s Legal Centre, Submission.

[73]     Western NSW Community Legal Centre, Submission; Murray Mallee Community Legal Service, Submission.

[74]     Housing is a Human Right Project, Submission; Youth Accommodation Interagency Nepean, Submission; Public Interest Law Clearing House Homeless Persons’ Legal Clinic, Submission; S Levett, Submission; Homelessness NSW, Submission; Homeless Persons’ Legal Service (NSW), Submission; Council to Homeless Persons, Submission; ACT Shelter, Submission.

[75]     For example, Church and Nation Committee Presbyterian Church of Victoria, Submission; H Irving, Submission.

[76]     For example, A Twomey, Submission; H Irving, Submission.

[77]     For example, H Irving, Submission.

[78]     For example, P de Jersey, ‘A Reflection on a bill of rights’ in J Leeser and R Haddrick (eds), Don’t Leave Us with the Bill: the case against an Australian bill of rights (2009), Submission, 14.

[79]     A Twomey, Submission.

[80]     Church and Nation Committee Presbyterian Church of Victoria, Submission.

[81]     For example, Close the Gap Steering Committee for Indigenous Health, Submission; Aboriginal Resource and Development Services, Submission; Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Legal Services, Submission; Foundation for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Research, Submission; Australians for Native Title and Reconciliation Victoria, Submission; Australians for Native Title and Reconciliation NSW, Submission; Victorian Indigenous Youth Advisory Council, Submission; National Native Title Council, Submission; NSW Reconciliation Council, Submission; Liberty Victoria, Submission; University of Western Australia Boatshed Roundtable, Submission; T Blake, Submission; A Odeleye, Submission; K Knight, Submission; S McMillan, Submission.

[82]     For example, Coober Pedy, Community Roundtable; Kalgoorlie, Community Roundtable; Bendigo, Community Roundtable; Broken Hill, Community Roundtable, Bourke, Community Roundtable; Dubbo, Community Roundtable; Wodonga, Community Roundtable.

[83]     For example, Victorian Aboriginal Child Care Agency Co-op, Submission; Foundation for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Research, Submission; NSW reconciliation Council, Submission. See also Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples art. 3.

[84]     For example, Liberty Victoria, Submission; NSW Reconciliation Council, Submission. See also Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples art. 11.

[85]     For example, National Native Title Council, Submission; Australians for Native Title and Reconciliation NSW, Submission; Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples art. 32.

[86]     A Edwards and R McCorquodale, Submission.

[87]     Close the Gap Steering Committee for Indigenous Health, Submission.

[88]     Charter of Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006 (Vic), preamble.

[89]     ibid. s. 19.

[90]     Wirringa Baiya Aboriginal Women’s Legal Centre, Submission.

[91]     NSW Reconciliation Council, Submission.

[92]     Aboriginal Family Violence Prevention and Legal Service Victoria, Submission.

[93]     For example, Youthlaw, Submission; Youth Affairs Council of Victoria, Submission; UN Youth Association of Australia, Submission; Children’s Commissioners and Guardians of ACT, NSW, SA, Tas and WA, Submission; Child Rights Coalition, Submission; RMIT School of Global Studies, Social Science and Planning, Submission; Youth Justice Coalition (NSW), Submission; ChilOut—Children Out of Detention, Submission; Youth Advocacy Centre, Submission; Office of the Child Safety Commissioner Victoria, Submission; Australian Youth Forum, Submission; National Youth Coalition for Housing, Submission; N Cranswick, Submission; Logan Youth Legal Service, Submission; Left Right Think-Tank, Submission; E Shaw, Submission.

[94]     For example, Tweed Heads, Community Roundtable; Queanbeyan (1), Community Roundtable; Darwin (1), Community Roundtable; Katherine, Community Roundtable; Perth (2), Community Roundtable.

[95]     For example, Youthlaw, Submission; Children’s Commissioners and Guardians of ACT, NSW, SA, Tas and WA, Submission; Child Rights Coalition, Submission. See also Convention on the Rights of the Child art. 12.

[96]     Logan Youth Legal Service, Submission; Child Rights Coalition, Submission; Youthlaw, Submission. See also Convention on the Rights of the Child art. 3.

[97]     Youthlaw, Submission.

[98]     Youth Justice Coalition (NSW), Submission.

[99]     National Youth Coalition for Housing, Submission; National Children’s and Youth Law Centre—Child Rights Coalition, Submission; Youthlaw, Submission.

[100]    UN Youth Association of Australia, Submission; Youth Justice Coalition (NSW), Submission; Left Right Think-Tank, Submission; NSW Charter Group, Submission; Children’s Commissioners and Guardians of ACT, NSW, SA, Tas and WA, Submission.

[101]    WomenSpeak Alliance, Submission; Women’s Legal Service Victoria, Submission; UNIFEM, Submission; The Democracy Project, Submission; ACT Ministerial Advisory Council on Women, Submission; Women’s Legal Services (NSW), Submission; Women’s Electoral Lobby, Submission; Zonta International District 24, Submission; Women’s Health Loddon Mallee, Submission; Women’s Health Victoria, Submission; Australian Education Union, Submission; R Russell, Submission; F Grace, Submission.

[102]    For example, Darwin (1), Community Roundtable; Katherine, Community Roundtable; Wadeye, Community Roundtable; Mount Isa, Community Roundtable; Perth (1), Community Roundtable.

[103]    For example, UNIFEM, Submission; Women’s Legal Services Australia, Submission; WomenSpeak Alliance, Submission.

[104]    For example, Women’s Legal Service Victoria, Submission; WomenSpeak Alliance, Submission; Women’s Legal Services NSW, Submission; Women’s Health West, Submission.

[105]    Women’s Health West, Submission; Women’s Health Loddon Mallee, Submission; Women’s Health Victoria, Submission. See also Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women art. 12.

[106]    WomenSpeak Alliance, Submission.

[107]    ibid.

[108]    Women’s Legal Service (Vic), Submission.

[109]    Top End Women’s Legal Service, Submission; Sisters Inside, Submission.

[110]    For example, Australian Federation of Disability Organisations, Submission; Disability Discrimination Legal Service, Submission; NSW Council for Intellectual Disability, Submission; Physical Disability Council of NSW, Submission; National Ethnic Disability Alliance, Submission; Australian Association for Families of Children with a Disability, Submission; Women working alongside Women with Intellectual and Learning Disabilities, Submission; National Council on Intellectual Disability, Submission; Queenslanders with Disability Network, Submission; NSW Disability Discrimination Legal Centre, Submission; Victorian Women with Disabilities Network, Submission; Women with Disabilities Australia, Submission; Deaf Australia, Submission; Blind Citizens Australia, Submission.

[111]    For example, Geelong, Community Roundtable; Darwin (1), Community Roundtable; Tennant Creek, Community Roundtable; Alice Springs, Community Roundtable; Katherine, Community Roundtable; Ballarat, Community Roundtable; Charleville, Community Roundtable; Busselton, Community Roundtable; Burnie, Community Roundtable; Whyalla, Community Roundtable; Mt Gambier, Community Roundtable; Melbourne (1), Community Roundtable.

[112]    For example, NSW Disability Discrimination Legal Centre, Submission; Disability Discrimination Legal Service, Submission. See also Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities art. 9.

[113]    For example, Victorian Women with Disabilities Network, Submission. See also Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities art. 16.

[114]    For example, National Council on Intellectual Disability, Submission. See also Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities art. 19.

[115]    Australian Federation of Disability Organisations, Submission.

[116]    Disability Discrimination Legal Service, Submission.

[117]    Whyalla, Community Roundtable.

[118]    Sydney (2), Community Roundtable.

[119]    For example, Reach Out Mental Health, Submission; Mental Health Legal Centre, Submission; NSW Consumer Advisory Group—Mental Health, Submission; Victorian Institute of Forensic Mental Health, Submission; Homeless Outreach Psychiatric Service, Submission; Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists, Submission.

[120]    For example, Tweed Heads, Community Roundtable; Queanbeyan (1), Community Roundtable; Alice Springs, Community Roundtable; Mt Isa, Community Roundtable; Paraburdoo, Community Roundtable.

[121]    For example, NSW Consumer Advisory Group—Mental Health, Submission; Mental Health Legal Centre, Submission.

[122]    For example, Mental Health Legal Centre, Submission; ReachOut Mental Health, Submission.

[123]    For example, Mental Health Legal Centre, Submission.

[124]    For example, Mental Health Coordinating Council, Submission.

[125]    Mental Health Legal Centre, Submission.

[126]    For example, Katherine, Community Roundtable; Mt Isa, Community Roundtable; Paraburdoo, Community Roundtable; Bendigo, Community Roundtable.

[127]    For example, Hotham Mission Asylum Seeker Project, Submission; Asylum Seeker Resource Centre, Submission; Asylum Seekers Centre of NSW, Submission; Refugee Council of Australia, Submission; Refugee Advice + Casework Service, Submission; St Ignatius’ Parish, Norwood Refugee Support Group, Submission; Network of Immigrant and Refugee Women of Australia, Submission; Gilbert + Tobin Centre of Public Law (J McAdam and T Garcia), Submission; Refugee Youth Workers Network, Submission; Queensland Public Interest Law Clearing House—Refugee Civil Law Clinic, Submission; J Burnside, Submission.

[128]    For example, Alice Springs, Community Roundtable; Ballarat, Community Roundtable; Perth (1), Community Roundtable; Burnie, Community Roundtable; Whyalla, Community Roundtable; Mt Gambier, Community Roundtable; Melbourne (3), Community Roundtable; Geelong, Community Roundtable; Broome, Community Roundtable.

[129]    Refugee Council of Australia, Submission.

[130]    St Ignatius’ Parish, Norwood Refugee Support Group, Submission.

[131]    Hotham Mission Asylum Seeker Project, Submission; Asylum Seekers Centre of NSW, Submission.

[132]    Hotham Mission Asylum Seeker Project, Submission (emphasis in original removed).

[133]    Mustafa Najib, Public Hearing.

[134]    For example, Federation of Ethnic Communities’ Councils of Australia, Submission; Ethnic Communities Council of Queensland, Submission.

[135]    Federation of Ethnic Communities’ Councils of Australia, Submission.

[136]    Australia/Israel & Jewish Affairs Council, Submission; Muslim Women’s Support Centre of WA, Submission; Australian Baha’i Community, Submission; Falun Dafa Association of Victoria, Submission; Odinist Rite of Australia, Submission; ACT Muslim Advisory Council, Submission.

[137]    For example, Z Bailey, Submission; D Wilson, Submission; Newcastle, Community Roundtable; Sydney (3), Community Roundtable; Cronulla (1), Community Roundtable.

[138]    Australian Baha’i Community, Submission.

[139]    Human Rights Council of Australia, Submission.

[140]    Aboriginal Resource and Development Services, Submission.

[141]    For example, Seniors Legal Support Service (Brisbane), Submission; Seniors Rights Victoria, Submission; Council on the Ageing NSW, Submission; Senior Roundtable, Submission; C Steiner, Submission; Queanbeyan (1), Community Roundtable; Alice Springs, Community Roundtable; Ballarat, Community Roundtable; Bendigo, Community Roundtable; Mildura, Community Roundtable; Geelong, Community Roundtable.

[142]    Seniors Rights Victoria, Submission.

[143]    ibid.

[144]    ibid.

[145]    Colmar Brunton Social Research, National Human Rights Consultation—devolved consultation report (2009).

[146]    ibid.

[147]    For example, Ministerial Advisory Committee on Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, Transgender and Intersex Health and Wellbeing, Submission; OUTthere Rural Victorian Youth Council for Sexual Diversity, Submission; The Tasmanian Coming Out Proud Program State Steering Committee, Submission; National LGBT Health Alliance, Submission; Queer Muslims in Australia, Submission; AGMC, Submission; Parents and Friends of Lesbians and Gays, Submission; Lesbian and Gay Solidarity Melbourne, Submission; Gay & Lesbian Health Victoria, Submission; S Hawthorne, Submission; Coalition of Activist Lesbians, Submission; J-P Ameur, Submission; Tweed Heads, Community Roundtable; Perth (2), Community Roundtable; Mt Gambier, Community Roundtable; Geelong, Community Roundtable; Sydney (2), Community Roundtable; Canberra, Community Roundtable; Melbourne (3) Community Roundtable.

[148]    For example, Gay and Lesbian Rights Lobby, Submission; Ministerial Advisory Committee on Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, Transgender and Intersex Health and Wellbeing, Submission.

[149]    For example, National LGBT Health Alliance, Submission.

[150]    For example, Tasmanian Gay and Lesbian Rights Group.

[151]    For example, Ministerial Advisory Committee on Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, Transgender and Intersex Health and Wellbeing, Submission.

[152]    For example, Australian Coalition for equality, Submission; AIDS Council of NSW, Submission; National LGBT Health Alliance, Submission.

[153]    The Tasmanian Coming Out Proud Program State Steering Committee, Submission.

[154]    For example, Australian Council of Trade Unions, Submission; Shop, Distributive and Allied Employees Association, Submission; Australian Education Union, Submission; JobWatch Employment Rights Legal Centre, Submission; Broken Hill, Community Roundtable; Cronulla (1), Community Roundtable.

[155]    Australian Council of Trade Unions, Submission.

[156]    ibid.

[157]    For example, Australian Network of Environmental Defenders Offices, Submission; S Sellwood, Submission; Law Institute of Victoria, Submission; Public Interest Advocacy Centre, Submission; NSW Charter Group, Submission; Youth Affairs Council of Victoria, Submission; C Riebl, Submission; A Cianchi, Submission; Queanbeyan (1), Community Roundtable; Alice Springs, Community Roundtable; Yirrkala, Community Roundtable; Perth (2), Community Roundtable; Mildura, Community Roundtable; Whyalla, Community Roundtable; Mt Gambier, Community Roundtable; Newcastle, Community Roundtable; Melbourne (2), Community Roundtable; Sydney (3), Community Roundtable; Cronulla (1), Community Roundtable; Cairns, Community Roundtable.

[158]    Australian Network of Environmental Defenders Offices, Submission.

[159]    ibid; Federation of Community Legal Centres, Submission; L Ealing, Submission.

[160]    UN World Commission on Environment and Development, Our Common Future (1987), cited in Australian Network of Environmental Defenders Offices, Submission.

[161]    Public Interest Advocacy Centre, Submission.

[162]    Scarlet Alliance, Submission.

[163]    J Debeljak, Submission; Castan Centre for Human Rights Law, Submission;

[164]    For example, Human Rights Council of Australia, Submission.

[165]    C Steiner, Submission.

[166]    For example, Commissioner for Victims’ Rights South Australia, Submission; Victim Support Australasia, Submission.

[167]    Commissioner for Victims’ Rights South Australia, Submission.

[168]    Law Council of Australia, Submission; Australian Democrats, Submission; B Saul, Submission; Law Institute of Victoria, Submission; Darwin (2), Community Roundtable.

[169]    Australian Human Rights Commission, Submission.

[170]    Public Interest Advocacy Centre, Submission.

[171]    Colmar Brunton Social Research, National Human Rights Consultation—community research report (2009).

[172]    T Ginnane, Submission.

[173]    Bill Stefaniak, ‘A reflection on the ACT Human Rights Act’ in Don’t Leave Us with the Bill: the case against an Australian bill of rights (2009) 312.

[174]    For example, Queanbeyan (1), Community Roundtable.

[175]    A Adair, Submission.

[176]    B Schroeder, Submission.

[177]    Gilbert + Tobin Centre of Public Law, Submission.

[178]    For example, A Edwards and R McCorquodale, Submission.

[179]    For example, M Pearce, Submission; Law Institute of Victoria, Submission; Australian Council of Social Service, Submission; A Edwards and R McCorquodale, Submission.

[180]    For example, M Pearce, Submission.

[181]    B Saul, Submission.

[182]    For example, Australian Human Rights Commission, Submission; Public Interest Advocacy Centre, Submission; Human Rights Council of Australia, Submission; Australian Council of Social Service, Submission; Victorian Bar, Submission. The Law Institute of Victoria noted that it would not support the inclusion in a federal Human Rights Act of binding responsibilities on individuals but would welcome further consideration of the matter at a later stage in the Act’s life.

[183]    Australian Council of Social Service, Submission.

[184]    For example, Australian Human Rights Commission, Submission; G Williams, Submission; Public Interest Advocacy Centre, Submission; Human Rights Council of Australia, Submission; NSW Charter Group, Submission.

[185]    For example, Broome, Community Roundtable.

[186]    G Williams, Submission.