• 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 1 | Chapter 3>>

2  The community’s views

Many stories were shared in written submissions and during the 66 community roundtables the Committee held around Australia, and it was clear that for many people human rights are not an abstract concept but are relevant to actual, everyday experience. This chapter gives a voice to some of the individuals who participated in the Consultation. Subsequent chapters deal more analytically with gaps in human rights protection and options for promoting and increasing the protection those rights afford.

Most of the people who attended the community roundtables and presented written submissions to the Committee wanted to see greater protection and promotion of human rights and responsibilities. Only a minority believed our current protections are adequate. This division was not, however, reflected in the results of the research the Committee commissioned: in a random sample of 1200 Australians and in 15 focus groups held around the country it was found that most participants gave little thought to their human rights because they believed those rights to be adequately secured.

2.1   Themes

The Committee heard that there have been serious breaches of human rights during the past decade—the setting aside of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (Cth) in order to implement the Northern Territory Emergency Response (the so-called Intervention); the lengthy, and potentially indefinite, mandatory detention of asylum seekers; and the increase in law enforcement agencies’ powers as a result of the new national security laws. There was a sense that the power of the executive arm of government needs to be checked.

Although we live in one of the world’s greatest democracies, vulnerable groups—such as Indigenous Australians, homeless people, the mentally ill, people with disabilities, the elderly and children in care—often miss out. In particular, we have failed dismally in seeking to redress the Third World disadvantage of our Indigenous peoples and to acknowledge them in the Constitution.

The Committee heard that ‘survival’ rights—basic rights such as the right to freedom from violence, the right to the highest attainable standard of health, and the right to sufficient food, clothing and water—are pivotal for Australians. In the case of health and other basic services, the gap between metropolitan and rural and remote areas is a reality for many who live outside our cities.

Impassioned voices spoke on both sides of controversial subjects such as same-sex marriage, euthanasia, the rights of the unborn, and religious groups who feel their rights have been curtailed by a lack of legislation to protect them.

A great many participants rued the lack of understanding of human rights, how they apply in daily life and the provisions and mechanisms for their protection, and there were overwhelming calls for improved civic education. Support for better protection of the environment and for a greater acknowledgment of individual responsibility in this regard was also evident.

There was majority support for the implementation of a Human Rights Act, and at a number of community roundtables powerful arguments for going further and constitutionally entrenching rights were put forward. On the other hand, there was substantial opposition to a Human Rights Act because it would transfer power to ‘unelected judges’ and create a ‘lawyers’ picnic’. There was also concern about achieving the right balance between respecting the rights of individuals and placing limits on rights for the public good and about balancing conflicting rights.

Barriers to access to justice—including the complexity of the legal system and the high cost of going to court—were another source of concern. The majority of participants supported increased scrutiny of proposed legislation that might impinge on human rights and greater accountability and transparency in the mechanisms of government once legislation is passed. There were strong calls for governments at all levels to honour their responsibility to respect human rights and for the court system to play a role in the enforcement of those rights.

On the other hand, a considerable number of people said they think human rights are sufficiently protected and promoted in Australia. One can assume that this attitude is a natural consequence of the fact that Australia is a country where most people live with a sense that their freedom, equality and dignity are not threatened. It is widely acknowledged that Australia does not have the human rights problems apparent in many other countries and that Australia is, in general, a wonderful country to live in. The majority of people living here feel the system is not broken, and they do not foresee their human rights ever being curtailed. This situation leads many Australians to be sceptical about human rights and to calls for human rights legislation. John McCarthy is typical of this group:

Throughout the Consultation, however, the Committee heard from thousands of Australians who are troubled by human rights problems—whether affecting themselves or others. There were reports of deprivation of liberty through police and immigration detention and of routine problems such as lack of access to health care, disability support services, housing and education. All such problems, dramatic or otherwise, can have crippling effects on the people who experience them. Often, when discussing which rights need better protection, people focused on groups in society that miss out and are on the margins; they wanted clarity about how governments and the courts could play a role in redressing disadvantage.

Australian of the Year and prominent Indigenous leader Professor Mick Dodson said:

Although the current framework for human rights protection and gaps in that protection were apparent to lawyers and advocacy groups, for the average person the extent of the various protections was not always clear. People said they did not know how our democracy worked to protect what we assume to be our rights. One resident of Mount Isa said, ‘I couldn’t even tell you what’s in the Constitution’.[3] It was recognised that knowledge is a crucial element of our empowerment as citizens. A roundtable participant in Sydney said, ‘Education is critical if we are to affect a cultural shift—for people to gain a real sense of sovereignty, not a contrived sense, but in a structured sense’.[4]

Although many participants felt that government and its agencies need to respect citizens’ rights, treat people with dignity and be mindful of individual circumstances, others were concerned that we risk developing a more selfish and individualistic culture if we focus on rights. They said we need to be more considerate and to develop a culture of ‘we, not I’[5]—to move away from ‘looking after your own backyard to the exclusion of others’.[6]

People often expressed a feeling that governing institutions and systems were a force to be reckoned with—not necessarily malign but sometimes blind and clumsy. This brought acknowledgment that, although rights might not always be breached deliberately or maliciously, there must be protections against breaches resulting from bad process, bureaucratic bungling and other unintentional miscarriages of justice:

This theme was echoed in many locations; for example, a roundtable participant in Ballarat said, ‘It’s the information poor who aren’t having their rights protected’.[8] Another submission stated:

The majority of Consultation participants linked the protection of human rights with a Human Rights Act: ‘We need a charter of inspiration’.[10] They also saw such an Act as central to education and the promotion of rights and responsibilities:

A community roundtable participant referred to the plight of ‘vulnerable people who struggle to get food on the table, to have a place to live and to get out of bed in the morning’[12], saying there should be recognition that these people need help to engage in everyday life in the way other people can and that the ACT’s Human Rights Act fails in this regard because it deals only with civil and political rights.[13]

Many participants called for a ‘living document’ that could evolve as social values change. In contrast—and notwithstanding the Committee’s terms of reference—at numerous community roundtables there was considerable support for constitutional entrenchment of rights: ‘We need constitutional protection of rights. If we don’t have constitutional rights, the government giveth and the government taketh away’.[14] The value of a document in plain English was also emphasised—a document that is ‘distinctly Australian, that includes reference to Indigenous values such as sharing, inclusion and care for the land’.[15]

One Brisbane roundtable participant captured the popular view that legislation is required in order to protect rights: ‘A right that can’t be enforced isn’t a right. It’s just a good idea’.[16] Many proposed that more power be given to the Australian Human Rights Commission: ‘The Australian Human Rights Commission needs more teeth’, ‘Give the HRC teeth’.[17] Others did not support legislation: ‘It’s possible to be pro human rights and anti charter … my concern is that a charter would be handing over too much power to the judges’.[18] Still others thought it inappropriate to expect the government to solve every problem with a law—‘Is it the government’s role to enforce morality?’[19]—and that this would lead to a litigious culture and be a burden on the public purse—‘I’m suspicious about this whole human rights issue. I’m worried it will become a lawyers’ picnic at great cost to the community’.[20]

A few participants saw no need for action; for example, ‘I’m a businessman. In all the years I’ve been dealing with the community no one has ever told me they have had their human rights breached’.[21] And in Brisbane it was remarked that the roundtables were attracting ‘the human rights industry’.[22]

2.2   Lives in the balance

Participants in community roundtables identified particular groups of people whose human rights require greater protection. These people were often considered vulnerable or marginalised.

Indigenous Australians

One of the most frequently raised subjects throughout the entire Consultation was living conditions for Indigenous Australians.

It is widely acknowledged that some Indigenous communities face longstanding and intractable problems. Compared with the rest of the Australian population, Indigenous communities experience lower levels of access to housing, health care, education, support services, and community development and employment opportunities. These problems are often exacerbated by poverty, lack of education, substance abuse, feelings of powerlessness, depression, higher levels of reported domestic violence and abuse in some cases, widespread disillusionment with government, and sometimes a loss of hope.

There was, however, a view among some in the general community that Australia’s Indigenous peoples have been given more than enough; one specific complaint was that they are not looking after the homes the government has provided for them.[23]

Many acknowledged the difficulty of improving the lives of Indigenous Australians. Within the Indigenous community there was a strong sense of a ‘top-down’ mentality in the delivery of services and assistance at the expense of comprehensive consultation and discussion with the communities themselves—for example, ‘Let’s ask Aboriginal Australians what ways we can assist them to lift their standard of living. Only then will we begin to change the mentality that we are helping them, but rather start to empower them for themselves’.[24]

A community leader in Wadeye offered a clear message about a better way forward: ‘Talk to people, go slowly, develop relationships, explain things, monitor development’.[25] To date, most approaches have been undermined by a lack of appreciation of the importance of establishing trust: ‘The most successful approach is when you build relationships first’ .[26] In evaluating results against expectations, one community member in the remote north of Queensland highlighted the fact that for some Indigenous people it is only a short time since first contact with white people: ‘Think about it. It’s been 74 years’.[27]

Frank Brennan and Tammy Williams
with Mr Percy Neal, Mayor of Yarrabah Aboriginal Shire

Perhaps the most widespread complaint in relation to Indigenous Australians was the lack of access to services in remote areas. The recent non-government organisation ‘Close the Gap’ campaign has made people more aware of the Indigenous health crisis and the shocking difference in life expectancy between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians:

This was reflected in the research the Committee commissioned: 57 per cent of respondents felt that Indigenous people in remote areas need more human rights protection.[29] Some Indigenous roundtable participants felt this problem was in part caused by the inaccuracy of census data: ‘The census is a problem for us. It doesn’t count people properly. The consequence of the census not being reflective is that the community gets a small percentage of funding’.[30]

The Committee heard how Indigenous Australians with a disability were further marginalised: ‘People with disability of Aboriginal descent have very little access to quality disability services. Here in [South Australia] their advocates are also their service providers. What a conflict of interest!’[31] Others were further disadvantaged by being a minority within a minority. During the community roundtable on Thursday Island the Committee was told the status of Torres Strait Islander peoples as ‘Indigenous Australians’ tended to be overlooked.[32]

There was widespread frustration with the lack of progress on promised new housing. One participant from Wadeye said, ‘There needs to be more continuity. Everything is start–stop. With more stops. Twelve or 13 new houses have been built here. Eleven are for white people’.[33] Another disappointment is intervention, by both government and non-government organisations, that results in visits by teams from big southern cities to implement inappropriate programs that often do not come to fruition and often lack the cooperation of Indigenous people. One Indigenous NGO worker said, ‘Indigenous people watch them blow into town like plastic bags and just wait for the wind to blow them out again’.[34]

The experience of the Stolen Generations was a common theme running through the Consultation:

There was also unease about the effect on coming generations: ‘How do we empower Aboriginal men to be good fathers, good husbands, when they’ve never had a father figure and therefore no model to learn from? A whole way of life that’s been missing from peoples’ lives’.[36]

The community roundtable in Bourke provided an example of the exclusion Indigenous Australians experience. The roundtable was to take place at the Bourke Bowling Club, but a large number of Indigenous residents had been banned from the club and so were not able to attend. An impromptu second consultation was held in a different location, so that Indigenous people could have their say. A mother spoke of her anger at the repeated suspension of her 11-year-old son from a local school, expressing frustration that options other than suspension were not given sufficient consideration and saying Indigenous school children suffer as a result of this approach. In her opinion, teachers often lack experience in working with Indigenous children and have received no cultural awareness training. A health professional spoke of the difference in her colleagues’ treatment of Indigenous patients and said non-Indigenous patients in the maternity ward sometimes asked not to be placed in a bed next to an Indigenous patient.

People commented that the Prime Minister’s formal apology to the Stolen Generations was ‘a good start’, but the goodwill appears to be giving way to impatience and a desire to see meaningful policy reform and reconciliation action.

There was widespread recognition of the enabling power of education, and there were pleas for the retention of Indigenous culture and language in order to preserve heritage and identity. People also wanted school to be made relevant for Indigenous children:

In Darwin teacher Yalmay Yunupingu pleaded for the right to teach culture, heritage and values through language: ‘Please, please, we want our rights back’.[38] In Weipa there was resentment that little had changed over time: ‘We’re still colonising people’s souls’.[39]

Sign at the entrance to Santa Teresa community

On the question of the central importance of education, an elder said, ‘It’s a very bad history but some of us can get out of it … education is the key’.[40] Other people said, ‘White folk are educated, they have other options’[41]; ‘Does everything hang on literacy? It really does’[42] and ‘We’re a wealthy country. Why do we have children who can’t read and write?’[43]

Many commented that the income-management measures forming part of the Intervention had resulted in money for food for children, but others who had previously managed their money responsibly spoke of humiliation. An Indigenous woman from Santa Teresa in the Central Desert spoke of a sign at the entrance to her community; it reads ‘Prescribed area: prohibited material’, referring to pornography. ‘How would you like that if the government put that up on your front door?’ she asked.[44]

In the public hearings the Committee was reminded of the human rights of Indigenous prisoners. Two presenters spoke of the multiple disadvantages Indigenous women in custody experience, referring to the disproportionately high number of Indigenous females in prison (over 25 per cent of the total population of women prisoners) and the large number of women classified as ‘high security’ (65 per cent of classified imprisoned women in Queensland).[45] Debbie Kilroy, from Sisters Inside, submitted there was a lower likelihood of Indigenous women prisoners being ‘placed on a community-based order than non-Indigenous women’ and:

Sisters Inside also referred to the trauma of strip searches, which are sometimes carried out by male officers: ‘The women in Brisbane’s Women’s Prison are subjected to a full strip search including a cough and squat after every visit. If the woman is menstruating she is required to remove her tampon or pad and hand it to the screw for disposal’.[47]

Elizabeth Langdon, Magistrate at Kalgoorlie Courthouse, said that in remote communities far fewer options are available for sentencing and prison is often the only option, rather than the last resort.[48] Sisters Inside noted that some of the recommendations of the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody have not been implemented and that the recommendations of all inquiries into Indigenous dispossession and disadvantage need to be implemented.[49]

Other Consultation participants drew attention to specific instances such as the death of Mr Ward inside an overheated prison van compartment in Western Australia[50], the death in custody of Mulrunji Doomadgee at Palm Island[51], and the solitary confinement of Corey Brough in a New South Wales prison:

The cycle of consultations followed by lack of action or the implementation of ineffective policies has resulted in many Indigenous people feeling disappointed and angry and suffering from ‘consultation fatigue’. This was encapsulated in the statement that governments only ‘deal with Aboriginal problems, not Aboriginal people’.[53]

Indigenous people cited the Queensland Government’s alcohol restrictions in Indigenous communities, the Northern Territory Government’s ‘homelands’ policy, reforms to the Community Development Employment Program, and the Northern Territory Intervention legislation as examples of government policy decisions that have impinged on their rights. It was argued that before the Intervention the Federal Government ‘should have sat down with each community and asked “What are the problems that we face here and [can we] work on them together?”’[54]

Many Consultation participants had little hope that either the Federal Parliament or the public service would implement recommendations that would lead to substantial protection and promotion of the human rights of Indigenous Australians. This despair was evident in a community roundtable at which an elder and a younger person spoke of their anguish at living in deplorable conditions in their remote community and yet feeling ill-equipped to leave their country and family.[55]

Most Indigenous people who spoke to the Committee held the view that, in order to move forward, reference to Indigenous people and their rights had to be enshrined in the Constitution or in a treaty. A participant on Thursday Island said, ‘What the Government gives you today by statutory right, they will quite quickly take away tomorrow’[56] and that ‘Sovereignty is for us to live and breathe the heritage of our elders’.[57] Another participant noted, ‘The Inquiry recommends that Northern Territory Intervention is a reflection of the government’s inability to effectively deal with problems over the past 200 years’.[58]

The disillusionment many Indigenous people throughout the country feel in relation to substantive change in their quality of life cannot be overstated. At the end of an informative and engaging community roundtable on Thursday Island, a respected elder from Torres Strait stood up and addressed the Committee: ‘Thank you for coming all of this way to hear our concerns, but the truth is it has been a waste of our time and a waste of yours’.[59]

Homeless people

Not having proper accommodation is very often linked to other problems such as family breakdown, addiction, mental illness, unemployment and other serious vulnerability factors. In Australia there is arguably no group more stigmatised and dehumanised than homeless people:

Homelessness often exacerbates other disadvantages people face. It means not having a fixed address, which can preclude a person from access to welfare support, employment, education and other means of engaging with society. This in turn deprives the person of the opportunity to find a way out of homelessness by finding paid work and permanent accommodation and enjoying the protection these things afford:

At community roundtables the Committee heard participants express disbelief and anger that a country as prosperous as Australia is not capable of helping its (relatively small) homeless population.

The Matthew Talbot Hostel and the nearby Wayside Chapel offer limited crisis accommodation for homeless men in Sydney. The Committee visited the hostel; it has been refurbished and has some very dedicated staff, but it, like the other similar facilities, struggles to obtain sufficient funding.

People who are homeless face a further barrier to the securing of their human rights. Sections of the community hold the view that homelessness is a ‘choice’—a product of laziness, substance abuse and a person’s lack of will to pull himself or herself out of their situation. This is simplistic, and it fails to do justice to the complexity of the difficulties homeless people confront.

Homeless people struggle to have their voices heard. Agencies and advocates working with them complain of a lack of resources and a media that pays little heed to the problem, despite the increase in homelessness resulting from the current economic crisis.

The lack of an address can be a barrier to escaping homelessness. The Illawarra Legal Centre submitted:

The centre argued that a Human Rights Act might be used to obtain a different outcome: ‘The right to housing could be used to influence Housing NSW to allow this man to access the flat that had been offered to him or, at the very least, not to lose his position on the waiting list’.[63]

Although most people would agree that the right to adequate housing is a fundamental human right—as recognised in the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights—this right is not protected in Australia. In its efforts to help former prisoners ‘successfully exit the justice system, [provide] space and support to a young person overcoming abuse or mental illness, or [help] someone find a job’ Jesuit Social Services has become aware of numerous instances in which this right to housing is violated.[64] A staff member at Gateway Homelessness Services submitted, ‘I have worked with a number of clients whose human rights have been violated in respect to housing. They can’t get emergency housing and have to sleep rough as a result or they have been inappropriately housed in unsafe conditions’.[65]

The availability of housing for people on low incomes is further reduced in a tight real estate market. As John, a young person, said, ‘Trying to pay the rent a lot of people ask on Youth Allowance is impossible. Besides, putting Centrelink on an application for rental housing is the kiss of death’.[66] A staff member at Connexions Direct, a service that provides information to young people at risk of homelessness, also spoke of the scarcity of proper accommodation:

Jesuit Social Services reported that the only alternative to homelessness for many young people is rooming houses:

This was echoed by a Connexions Direct staff member:

Another option for many low-income families is accommodation in overcrowded public housing estates, where the number of actual residents is often much higher than the official figures would suggest: ‘I know one Sudanese family living seven in a house and the mother has been sleeping on the floor for two years because there is not enough room. There is a lot of overcrowding, seven people in a two bed room house’.[70]

People with disabilities

The Committee heard from people with disabilities and their advocates many anecdotes about the challenge of negotiating everyday needs and their right to participate in society as fully as possible. There appears to be a gulf in the mainstream community’s appreciation of the difficulties faced by the families of adults and children with disabilities. Faye Galbraith, a mother of two boys aged 6 and 8 submitted:

There were pleas to reduce the ignorance about the cost of living with a disability and the cost of living for many elderly members of society:

The Committee was surprised to receive from disability support agencies a large number of submissions dealing with ‘forced co-tenancy’. This situation appears to arise when, as a consequence of financial constraints or decisions made by the bureaucracy, a person with a disability is forced into a tenancy with an entirely unsuitable housemate or co-tenant. There were many such stories:

Consultation participants expressed disappointment that we have come so far as a society but that often, in town planning and construction, scant regard is had for people with disabilities. One person commented that her council built ‘a top-class facility (50m swimming pool) and has not provided access for disabled people—zero disability access’.[74]

The Law Institute of Victoria submitted that, because Australia has ratified the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, government should be protecting and promoting the rights of people with a physical or mental disability, ensuring that they have opportunities, freedoms and a standard of living equivalent to those enjoyed by people without a disability. Access is crucial to helping people with disabilities gain an education and participate in the workforce and in community life. Failure to protect the rights of these people not only reduces their quality of life but is also inconsistent with our perception of social responsibility and values, the institute argued.[75]

People living with mental illness

The rights of people living with mental illness were important to many who participated in the Consultation. People living with mental illness were seen to be among the most vulnerable members of society and among those most at risk of ‘falling through the cracks’:

Eva Kaufman described her disappointment at the fact that, although there have been some improvements in the mental health system, there remain gaping holes in service provision:

A mother wrote of her despair that her two sons’ mental illnesses are preventing them from realising their potential in society:

In Geelong a young man expressed anguish that the community has too little regard for the human rights of people struggling with mental health problems. He said he was forced to undergo medical treatment that had irrevocably damaged his health and he was angry at this intrusion on his bodily integrity.[79]

Another person with a mental illness spoke of her experience with compulsory medication, involuntary admission to hospital and community-based orders. She acknowledged that sometimes the rights of people with mental illness must be limited for their own good and to facilitate treatment, but she implored service providers and medical practitioners to be mindful of the dignity of the patient:

Another submitter said she had worked ‘for over 20 years with people with intellectual disability, mental illness and serious offenders. Human rights abuses in institutions are ongoing’.[81] Others emphasised the importance of seeking instructions and approval for care and treatment when the individual concerned is well.

In Brisbane a woman spoke about her brother, who had been diagnosed with schizophrenia. She said that when she thinks about Cornelia Rau, whom the government held in immigration detention, she fears for her brother:

Jesuit Social Services highlighted the complexity of the problem, nothing that people with mental illness often end up in prison:

People living in rural and remote areas

In country towns and remote communities across the nation many participants spoke of poorer access to services and the differences in the adequacy of the services provided by the states and territories. A participant in Wodonga said:

For example, Whyalla and Mount Gambier lack emergency or crisis shelters. Much hardship was caused by the lack of health services in many centres, it was said, and as a result of the fact that the closest major hospital might well be interstate. The impact of this situation was greatest for people with disabilities or mental illness, elderly people, cancer sufferers and others with serious illness.

Roundtable participants in Mount Isa, a town that has contributed much to Australia’s wealth, pointed out the irony—‘resource rich, service poor’.[85] Elsewhere, participants spoke of the consequence of physical isolation—‘They don’t call it the Great Dividing Range for nothing; the Great Dividing Range is dividing us from services’.[86]

Many participants felt there should be mechanisms for ensuring equality of treatment across state borders and that this right to equivalent treatment should be enforceable. Many also made the point that there was no common-sense approach to bureaucratic border problems (such as the red tape associated with filling medical prescriptions interstate), particularly in urgent situations.[87] Others went further, urging not only a strong enforcement mechanism to ensure equitable delivery of services in a way that protects basic human rights nationwide but also proposing that the states and territories be abolished because they are ineffective and give rise to great disparities.[88]

Among the most disadvantaged people living in rural and remote areas are people with mental illness, it was said.[89] Mt Gambier exemplified the country–city divide and the state-by-state differences in service delivery. A lawyer whose daughter has been ‘sectioned’ many times called for a rethinking of the way resources are allocated, saying that a person with mental illness who is picked up by the police is taken to a hospital in Adelaide and, when discharged, is left at the bus stop with no money and without their family being notified. He was dismayed at the great difference in service provision in a town a few hundred kilometres away across the border: ‘Warrnambool has excellent services. Mt Gambier has nothing’.[90]

The ageing

Many people are becoming increasingly concerned about the inadequacy of services for the ageing, the conditions inside retirement hostels and nursing homes, and the general vulnerability of people who become invisible because they are elderly.

In one regional centre a woman shared her story. She had been working in a nursing home but resigned after less than a month because she was horrified by the human rights abuses she witnessed: ‘I worked there for a while and it changed my life. When you are old you are … tossed on the hay and forgotten’.[91] Another participant wrote of two incidents:

Many participants told the Committee more attention must be paid to the needs and care of people as they age and that mechanisms must be introduced to alert responsive, responsible authorities if conditions fail to meet expectations:

There was often a call for greater awareness of the difficulties associated with ageing—including the physical, social, mental and financial circumstances that tend to deteriorate with age. In the case of the financial affairs of the ageing, there was sometimes resentment at the inflexible application of rules and regulations. For example, Geraldine Gillen lamented that, because she chooses to work more than 20 hours a week, she cannot obtain a seniors card, which is available to people over 60 years of age who work less than 20 hours a week. This means that, unlike her friends who have retired fully, she has no access to seniors card benefits. She made the point that the 20-hour restriction applies regardless of total income:

The ACT Disability, Aged and Carer Advocacy Service commented, ‘Advocacy groups concerned with the rights of frail older people and people with disabilities say protections existing in Australian law in relation to their rights [are] woefully inadequate’.[95]

The right to be free from degrading treatment is especially pertinent to older people living in aged care facilities and nursing homes. This is because they are entirely dependent on facility staff and their carers. Seniors Rights Victoria echoed a commonly expressed fear: ‘Older people have limited ability to protect themselves and assert their rights in an environment where efficiency is often the main priority of caregivers’. [96]

Children

The subject of the rights of children arose in various contexts, among them disability, homelessness, asylum seekers, and life in Indigenous communities.

Josephine Frankland briefly catalogued what she believes are breaches of the rights of children in Australia:

Bev Schimke wrote of her fears for children, and their mothers, living in situations of domestic violence:

Neil Price believes the welfare of children is sufficiently important to warrant a designated commissioner: ‘We need a federal youth commissioner to enforce the Rights of the Child’.[99] In one of the community roundtables, however, an Indigenous elder said that children already have more than enough rights and that it is parents’ rights that are often compromised.[100]

Access to justice

Lack of access to justice is a serious concern for many people living in Australia. The availability of access to legal aid and assistance in ordinary legal proceedings is at crisis point, private and government-funded public legal services being overburdened and under-resourced. This has dire consequences for many people and limits the possibility of people having real equality before the law: ‘Equality before the law is not practised in the case of many Australians because they cannot afford relevant representation and cannot get legal aid. Australian governments must provide suitable resources to enable legal aid access’.[101]

This inability to afford legal services means that many people cannot gain access to the remedies that guarantee rights through the legal system. Many community lawyers who attended community roundtables said their clients are often people with disabilities, mental illness or other vulnerability factors and require more time and special attention.[102]

Mr Mustafa Najib tells his story. Rescued by the Tampa and then held in
detention on Nauru, he is now a graduate of an Australian university

In the community there is also much anxiety for friends and relatives who are caught up in the criminal justice system:

In rural areas particularly people were worried that police abused their powers and did not follow due process:

A clean and healthy environment

At almost all the roundtable discussions right to clean air and clean water was raised, as was our responsibility to hand on to future generations a sustainable environment. There was consternation about environmental damage and anger at failure to enforce measures to protect the environment from further destruction:

Many participants made the point that, in the absence of clean air, water and food and a sustainable environment, there is no point to having any other rights since survival itself is at stake: ‘We need to ensure that environmental rights are protected, so our children, and children’s children have an ecologically sustainable future’.[106]

In some centres environmental concerns were regional in their focus: ‘Access to clean drinking water is a human right and a lot of the time we don’t get it here … the Murray is a really big issue for South Australia and it’s going to get bigger’.[107]

In Cairns roundtable participants spoke of the need to protect their environment from state laws, stressing the importance of not excluding environmental rights from federal protection: ‘We ask for a prohibition on cherry-picking rights. Rights must at all times be treated as a whole’.[108]

2.3   Contested areas

Consultation participants often questioned whether some recent laws and policies had struck a balance between individual liberty and the public interest.

The Northern Territory Intervention

There were strong objections to the suspension of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (Cth), which was done in order to facilitate the Commonwealth Government’s Northern Territory Emergency Response and imposed restrictions on Aboriginal communities in particular parts of the territory:

Rather than focus on the broad treatment of Indigenous people under the Intervention, Consultation participants often focused specifically, and with vehemence, on the suspension of the Act. One participant submitted:

Other participants praised aspects of the Intervention, noting that in some communities shopping trolleys were full for the first time and there was additional funding for much-needed infrastructure. Most people thought that if special laws are to be applied to Indigenous communities this should occur only after adequate consultation and serious attempts at developing partnerships in policy development and service delivery.

Asylum seekers

For 20 years successive Australian governments have adopted strong border protection policies that have removed some of the rights that people arriving on our shores and seeking refugee status were able to exercise. Governments have sought to justify their policies in terms of the need for ‘non-porous’ borders and an immigration policy that is controlled by government, rather than by people smugglers.

Research the Committee commissioned showed that public opinion is divided on asylum seekers: 28 per cent of survey respondents felt asylum seekers need more protection and 30 per cent wanted to reduce their level of protection.[111]

In Australia’s recent history few questions have been as divisive and inflammatory as the asylum seeker one. Political and media activity was frenzied in the wake of the Tampa affair, the SIEV-X maritime tragedy, and the ‘children overboard’ incident.

Although Australia accepts only a small proportion of the world’s refugees, the matter has become highly politicised. Many who raised the question of asylum seekers felt Muslim asylum seekers in particular have been demonised. There has been a sense that Muslims present a ‘threat to our way of life’ and a desire to curb the number of Muslims arriving in Australia. Some have sought to link people fleeing Afghanistan’s Taliban and Saddam Hussein’s regime in Iraq with those very regimes. But many sympathise with the plight of asylum seekers: ‘People aren’t getting on a boat for any other reason than to escape from really terrible conditions that we can’t even imagine’.[112] They point to a lack of compassion and an inability to identify with traumatised people:

The difficulties facing people arriving in Australia by boat were highlighted in submissions. Often the first hurdle is the treacherous journey, typically through Southeast Asia and then by boat to an Australian reef. If they are intercepted at sea, these people are usually returned to Indonesia or placed in detention on Christmas Island.

Numerous asylum seekers, among them children, have languished in Indonesia for years:

Many Consultation participants stridently criticised the use of offshore detention facilities to house asylum seekers—Nauru in particular—or facilities at inaccessible locations on the Australian mainland, such as Woomera.[115] The length and conditions of detention drew particular censure from many, who felt that detention centres, including Christmas Island, should be closed on the ground that they are ‘insupportable … of human dignity and rights’.[116]

Perhaps the greatest outrage was provoked by the detention of children, often for years. Well-publicised cases such as the Bakhtiari children aside, there are many cases of children who are already traumatised by their experiences being unable to cope with detention where they repeatedly witness adults trying to harm themselves:

In one instance the refusal, after repeated requests, of assistance for a troubled child in detention meant ‘the eleven-year-old took a bed sheet and hanged herself. She had not tied the knot properly and was still strangling when they found her. She then tried to swallow shampoo, as she had seen adults kill themselves that way in Woomera’.[118]

One of the most controversial aspects of Australia’s immigration detention system is the fact that it allows for indefinite detention. The name Al-Kateb is synonymous with this policy at its most egregious: in 2004 the High Court of Australia held that a man not accused of any offence could be kept in administrative immigration detention indefinitely:

In addition to the length of detention, the standard of treatment in detention centres is disturbing for many people:

The harshness of conditions in detention centres was illustrated in a case described by Julian Burnside QC. When a Muslim man refused to strip in front of his young daughter:

Since the 2005 discovery that Cornelia Rau, an Australian permanent resident with mental illness, was erroneously held in immigration detention, the question of detention has gained prominence. At that time even people who might not normally be concerned about immigration detainees began talking about protecting the rights of people in detention: ‘I come from a privileged background and therefore cannot say that my rights have ever been breached. Nevertheless, I do not think that human rights are adequately protected in immigration detention’.[122]

There was also concern about scant provision of services and assistance for new settlers in Australia, especially those dealing with trauma:

In one country town with a relatively large population of (mostly African) refugees the Committee heard there were inadequate settlement services to help the refugees integrate into the community.[124]

It is widely acknowledged that conditions for refugees have improved under the Rudd Government, but there remains a feeling that we have a long way to go and that something should be done to ensure that asylum seekers will not be treated inhumanely in the future.

National security laws

After the 11 September 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center in New York there was bipartisan support for the introduction of stringent national security legislation. Citizens concerned about civil liberties were outraged by the legislation. The legislated mechanisms—such as the use of adverse security findings, control orders, closed courts, secret evidence, and detention without charge—attracted strident criticism. The government claimed that this interference with individual rights and liberties was justified in the public interest because there was a need for robust measures to protect the community and to detect and deal with anyone who might be involved in terrorist activity.

One Consultation participant was worried about the most draconian aspects of these new laws and mentioned two high-profile examples:

Charles Knight, a roundtable participant and an expert in counter-terrorism studies, drew a link between increased acknowledgment of human rights and prevention of violence:

Many Consultation participants were disquieted by the case of Dr Mohamed Haneef, in which, after courts found the authorities had made erroneous assumptions about his connection with terrorism, the Minister responsible for immigration nevertheless cancelled Dr Haneef’s visa and he was removed from Australia.

David Hicks was also cited as an Australian whose right to a fair trial had not been upheld by his government.

Finally, there was unease at the possibility that the introduction of national security legislation had put free expression at risk:

2.4   ‘Hot button’ topics

The 'hot issues'-the Right Reverend Robert Forsyth,
Rodney Croome AM, Rita Joseph and Neil Francis

Throughout the Committee’s consultations participants kept raising four topics—same-sex marriage, euthanasia, abortion, and religious concerns with the Victorian Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities—that give rise to intense debate in the community. At the community roundtables, discussion often turned to whether a Human Rights Act would be a help or a hindrance in efforts to improve laws and policies in these areas without polarising the community.

Same-sex marriage

The Committee received moving submissions from people in same-sex relationships who are struggling under the weight of discrimination. In particular, many submissions from people in committed long-term same-sex relationships expressed a desire for the legal and social recognition afforded by marriage and the public declaration of commitment: ‘How can we have anti-discrimination laws that recognize the rights of gay and lesbian people and then not let them get legally married?’[128]

Others wrote of the central position of marriage in family life:

But in the general community views vary. Some people oppose any marriage other than that between a man and a woman on either religious or other grounds.[130]

Same-sex marriage was raised at many community roundtables and was the subject of a considerable number of submissions, which often made the point that in a secular society a civil marriage should be the right of all humans. The Committee was urged to phrase any right to marriage as a right of ‘persons’ because the wording ‘men and women’ in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights is sometimes construed as excluding same-sex marriage.[131]

Among other things, marriage brings with it legal consequences relating to taxation, property, family and other matters. Dennis Moran remarked that, even though he is in a long-term relationship, he cannot gain access to benefits granted to married heterosexual couples simply because his is in a same-sex relationship: ‘As a gay male in a committed relationship of 29 years, I have been treated as a single person in Australia’.[132]

Another submission dealt with the question of same-sex partnerships and family migration laws:

Broader aspects of discrimination featured regularly in discussions about sexual orientation and sexuality. Paolo Polimen wrote about applying to work for a church-based non-government organisation in Sydney:

If the definition of civil marriage in Australia were extended to include a union between two men or between two women, is that best done by a vote of the Federal Parliament to amend the Marriage Act 1961 or is it best done by judges interpreting various Commonwealth laws according to a general human rights law invoking equality and non-discrimination? The Federal Opposition submitted:

At the public hearings Rodney Croome, from Australian Marriage Equality, said:

Turning to the question of a Human Rights Act, he asked, ‘If a charter can’t deal effectively with the hard issues what’s the point?’

Euthanasia

The question of voluntary or physician-assisted suicide elicited passionate pleas at community roundtables across Australia. The Committee heard a number of mature voices calling for reforms to the law in this regard, to ensure that people who try to end their lives because of terminal illness or insufferable pain, and the people helping them, do not suffer criminal consequences. Many roundtable participants pointed out that an assurance of dying with dignity would prevent people ending their lives prematurely.

Numerous written submissions appealed to reason. Others reflected exasperation: ‘If I become terminally ill, too old and feeble, or incapacitated (by any means) to care for myself, I want the right to choose where, when and how I die. And the right of any chosen assistant if needed, to aid me with this endeavour without fear of prosecution’.[137] At the public hearings, Neil Francis, from Dying with Dignity Victoria, said:

A medical practitioner affiliated with the Voluntary Euthanasia Society of New South Wales highlighted the number of elderly people who take their own lives, something that receives little media attention:

People attending community roundtables spoke calmly and articulately of a right to a peaceful and dignified death and urged the Committee to consider the plight of those who face a traumatic end after great suffering. The right to die peacefully, surrounded by friends and family and on one’s own terms, appears to be a right that is gaining importance for the community.

Research the Committee commissioned showed that ‘dignity in death’ was a right Australians felt should be protected and promoted, with qualifications.[140] If there were to be a recognised right to assistance with suicide, the law would need to restrict that right to people with particular characteristics. For instance, it could apply to people who are experiencing extreme pain, whose condition is declining and for whom death is imminent, provided they have the mental competence to make the decision. It would also be necessary for law makers, be they politicians or judges, to consider the effects the granting of such rights would have on others—including people who might feel pressured to avail themselves of such a right in the interests of others inconvenienced by their continued living—and on the common good.

Abortion

At many community roundtables there was discussion of the unborn’s right to life and a woman’s right to choose. In a debate about a charter of rights there are few subjects more controversial than abortion.

Jessica Lenehan was emphatic about her desire to keep religion and medical treatment separate: ‘Keep your church out of my clinic!’[141] In Wodonga an interesting view was put:

At the public hearings Rita Joseph, author of Human Rights and the Unborn Child (published in 2009), referred to the statement made in international human rights instruments: ‘The child, by reason of his physical and mental immaturity, needs special safeguards and care, including appropriate legal protection, before as well as after birth’.[143] She asked, ‘So why in Australia today, do we continue the routine destruction of the lives of some 90% of children detected before birth to have Down syndrome? Where is the promised legal protection for these children?’[144]

Some people argued that the human foetus, especially once viable, ought to have the right to life and that that right should be protected and promoted by government. Others were strongly of the view that the fate of an unborn child should be the prerogative of the mother and her doctor.

In view of the moral divide in the community on this fundamental question, the Committee considers that, regardless of human rights legislation, any amendment to the laws affecting the status of an unborn child should be debated by the federal, state and territory parliaments, rather than rest on the interpretation of judges. Experience in the United States—particularly the continuing debate following the US Supreme Court’s 1978 decision in Roe v Wade[145]—provides evidence that such contested matters are not often resolved to the satisfaction of the community by judges alone.

Religious concerns about the Victorian charter

Many Victorians with church affiliations were worried about three distinct aspects of the state’s Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006.

First, it was suggested that the outcome of proceedings launched in 2005 under the Racial and Religious Tolerance Act 2001 (Vic) by the Islamic Council of Victoria against Catch the Fire Ministries for alleged religious vilification of Muslims could have impinged on freedom of religious speech. Had the Victorian charter been in effect at that time, it could have provided additional protection for religious freedom of expression.

Second, concern was expressed about the parliamentary review of exemptions to the Equal Opportunity Act 1995 (Vic), including exemptions for religious schools. This is a timely re‑evaluation, regardless of the existence of the charter.[146] The exemptions have been a source of concern for many members of faith communities. At the Committee’s public hearings Bishop Robert Forsyth said the exercise of the right to freedom of religion, conscience and belief by faith communities conducting educational and social works:

Third, the Committee heard that the Victorian charter’s usual scrutiny mechanisms, including a compatibility statement, were not applied to the Abortion Law Reform Act 2008 (Vic). The Act provided for abortion on demand, but the Victorian Parliament went one step further. The law requires that any medical practitioner with a conscientious objection to abortion refer the patient to another medical practitioner known not to have the same objection. The referral clause was not supported by the Australian Medical Association, whose code of ethics imposes no such obligation to refer.

At the time of the parliamentary debate, some portrayed the objections to the law as simply emanating from a group of zealots. The objectors could see, however, that such a law would needlessly violate the consciences of some medical practitioners. The Victorian Parliament’s Scrutiny of Acts and Regulations Committee raised questions about the new law, but parliament failed to act, the government declined to provide a statement of compatibility, and some lawyers said no such scrutiny or statement of compatibility was necessary. The Victorian Equal Opportunity & Human Rights Commission stated, ‘[The committee’s] interpretation of the Charter is preferable and … the bill should have been accompanied by a statement of compatibility’. [148]

Since the Victorian debate on the compulsory referral clause the Australian Medical Council has been consulting on a national code of ethics for all Australian doctors. It has reported, ‘There was a request for clear guidance in relation to conscientious objection’. The new code provides such guidance:

Despite the strong concerns religious groups expressed in relation to these three matters, it is arguable that the Victorian charter did not give rise to any of these problems, uncertainties or disputes for religious Victorians. Faithful application of the charter might even help protect the right to freedom of thought, conscience, religion and belief, which is provided for in the charter.

2.5   Conclusion

A majority of the thousands who responded to the Consultation sought to draw the Committee’s attention to the plight of society’s most vulnerable. Most of the participants felt that the protections afforded by majoritarian rule do not necessarily adequately take account of those who ‘fall through the cracks’. The written submissions and the voices of participants sought to harness our collective imagination as a civilised nation, to imagine ourselves in the shoes of others, and to respond with the compassion that is ultimately the measure of our humanity.

Some of the most challenging questions and problems—whether it is the wellbeing of remote Indigenous communities, the security of our national borders, or protection of the community from terrorism—require decision makers to strike a balance between the human rights of the individual and the welfare of society. Some of the calls for law reform and policy change relate to rights such as the right to die, the right to life and the right to religious freedom being accommodated with the competing rights and interests of others. Much of the disagreement in the Consultation focused on three questions:

• When ought the State be limited in exercising power?
• When ought the State limit the choices of individuals?
• When the State does act, should the balance be struck by parliament or the courts?

A Human Rights Act might help both parliaments and courts in resolving conflicting claims; it might also help communities make decisions on contentious social and moral questions. There is always a risk that groups unhappy with legislative or policy outcomes will claim that a Human Rights Act is applied selectively or ideologically.

<< Chapter 1 | Chapter 3>>

[1]       J McCarthy, Submission.

[2]       ANU National Centre for Indigenous Studies (M Dodson), Submission.

[3]       Mt Isa, Community Roundtable.

[4]       Sydney (3), Community Roundtable.

[5]       Ballarat, Community Roundtable.

[6]       Broome, Community Roundtable.

[7]       C Brenton, Submission.

[8]       Ballarat, Community Roundtable.

[9]       S Willett, Submission.

[10]     Darwin (2), Community Roundtable.

[11]     Wodonga, Community Roundtable.

[12]     Canberra, Community Roundtable.

[13]     Canberra, Community Roundtable.

[14]     Melbourne (3).

[15]     Newcastle, Community Roundtable.

[16]     Brisbane (1), Community Roundtable.

[17]     Melbourne (3), Community Roundtable.

[18]     Melbourne (2), Community Roundtable.

[19]     Dandenong, Community Roundtable.

[20]     Melbourne (3), Community Roundtable.

[21]     Bendigo, Community Roundtable.

[22]     Brisbane (2), Community Roundtable.

[23]     Colmar Brunton Social Research, National Human Rights Consultation—community research report (2009). The research is discussed in Chapter 1; Appendix B presents a summary of the report.

[24]     S Willett, Submission.

[25]     Wadeye, Community Roundtable.

[26]     Weipa, Community Roundtable.

[27]     Wadeye, Community Roundtable.

[28]     S Cools, Submission.

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

[30]     Coober Pedy, Community Roundtable.

[31]     M Baker, Submission.

[32]     B Hodges, Public Hearings.

[33]     Wadeye, Community Roundtable.

[34]     Katherine, Community Roundtable.

[35]     P Jangala, Submission.

[36]     Mt Isa, Community Roundtable.

[37]     Wadeye, Community Roundtable.

[38]     Darwin (1), Community Roundtable.

[39]     Weipa, Community Roundtable.

[40]     Charleville, Community Roundtable.

[41]     Mt Isa, Community Roundtable.

[42]     Mt Isa, Community Roundtable.

[43]     Mt Isa, Community Roundtable.

[44]     Santa Teresa, Community Roundtable.

[45]     V Roach, Public Hearings; D Kilroy, Public Hearings. See also Sisters Inside, Submission.

[46]     Sisters Inside, Submission.

[47]     ibid.

[48]     E Langdon, Public Hearings.

[49]     Sisters Inside, Submission.

[50]     Kalgoorlie, Community Roundtable.

[51]     Palm Island, Community Roundtable.

[52]     B Collins, Submission.

[53]     Weipa, Community Roundtable.

[54]     Yirrkala, Community Roundtable.

[55]     Broken Hill, Community Roundtable.

[56]     Coober Pedy, Community Roundtable.

[57]     Thursday Island, Community Roundtable.

[58]     Darwin, Community Roundtable.

[59]     Thursday Island, Community Roundtable.

[60]     C Glab, Submission.

[61]     W Nunn, Submission.

[62]     Illawarra Legal Centre, Submission.

[63]     ibid.

[64]     Jesuit Social Services, Submission.

[65]     Staff member, Gateway Homeslessness Services, cited in Jesuit Social Services, Submission.

[66]     John, cited in Jesuit Social Services, Submission.

[67]     Staff member, Connexions Direct, cited in Jesuit Social Services, Submission.

[68]     Jesuit Social Services, Submission.

[69]     Staff member, Connexions Direct, cited in Jesuit Social Services, Submission.

[70]     Staff member, Communities Together, cited in Jesuit Social Services, Submission.

[71]     F Galbraith, Submission.

[72]     K Thompson, Submission.

[73]     Community Safeguards Coalition, Submission.

[74]     T Banks, Submission.

[75]     Law Institute of Victoria, Submission.

[76]     M Moskof, Submission.

[77]     E Kaufman, Submission.

[78]     S Pipitone, Submission.

[79]     Geelong, Community Roundtable.

[80]     E Willoughby, Submission.

[81]     A Birdgen, Submission.

[82]     Brisbane (2), Community Roundtable.

[83]     Jesuit Social Services, Submission.

[84]     Wodonga, Community Roundtable.

[85]     Mt Isa, Community Roundtable.

[86]     Broken Hill, Community Roundtable.

[87]     For example, Broken Hill, Community Roundtable; Mt Gambier, Community Roundtable.

[88]     Dubbo, Community Roundtable.

[89]     Mt Gambier, Community Roundtable; Whyalla, Community Roundtable; Bourke, Community Roundtable.

[90]     Mt Gambier, Community Roundtable.

[91]     Confidential, Community Roundtable.

[92]     K Morris, Submission.

[93]     P Upham, Submission.

[94]     G Gillen, Submission.

[95]     ACT Disability, Aged and Carer Advocacy Service, Submission.

[96]     Seniors Rights Victoria, Submission.

[97]     J Frankland, Submission.

[98]     B Schimke, Submission.

[99]     N Price, Submission.

[100]    Charleville, Community Roundtable.

[101]    W Senderson, Submission.

[102]    Burnie, Community Roundtable; Wodonga, Community Roundtable; Mildura, Community Roundtable.

[103]    M Faulkner, Submission.

[104]    C Glab, Submission.

[105]    C Russell, Submission.

[106]    Jess, Submission.

[107]    Whyalla, Community Roundtable.

[108]    Cairns, Community Roundtable.

[109]    A Geihie, Submission.

[110]    F McAllan, Submission.

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

[112]    Mt Gambier, Community Roundtable.

[113]    ibid.

[114]    R Nairn, Submission.

[115]    Whyalla, Community Roundtable.

[116]    J Bell, Submission.

[117]    J Burnside, Submission.

[118]    ibid.

[119]    N Reece, Submission.

[120]    A Mayer, Submission.

[121]    J Burnside, Submission.

[122]    R Briese, Submission.

[123]    D Clement, Submission.

[124]    Wagga Wagga, Community Roundtable.

[125]    R Nairn, Submission.

[126]    C Knight, Submission.

[127]    K Cantrell, Submission.

[128]    M Feeney, Submission.

[129]    H Wang, Submission.

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

[131]    Australian Marriage Equality, Submission.

[132]    D Moran, Submission.

[133]    C Hii, Submission.

[134]    P Polimeri, Submission.

[135]    G Brandis, Submission.

[136]    R Croome, Public Hearings.

[137]    M Cartmill. Submission.

[138]    N Francis, Public Hearings.

[139]    Voluntary Euthanasia Soceity of NSW, Submission.

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

[141]    J Lenehan, Submission.

[142]    Wodonga, Community Roundtable.

[143]    UN Declaration of the Rights of the Child (1959); also cited in the preamble to the Convention on the Rights of the Child (1990).

[144]    R Joseph, Public Hearings.

[145]    Jane Roe et al. v. Henry Wade District Attorney of Dallas County 410 U.S. 113 (1973).

[146]    Scrutiny of Acts and Regulations Committee, Inquiry into Exceptions and Exemptions in the Equal Opportunity Act: options paper (2009). The inquiry is yet to be finalised.

[147]    R Forsyth, Public Hearings.

[148]    Victorian Equal Opportunity & Human Rights Commission, The 2008 Report on the Operation of the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities (2008) 103.

[149]    Australian Medical Council, Good Medical Practice: a code of conduct for doctors in Australia (2009).