Sunday, February 8, 2009

SMH A Human Rights Act Susan Ryan

Law to bring level playing field
Email
Printer friendly version
Normal font
Large font
Susan RyanJanuary 18, 2009
Page 1 of 2 Single page
Advertisement

A human rights act would be an important step towards a fair go forall Australians.
Many of us may know of an episode of cruel treatment of an old person in a nursing home, have felt for parents struggling to get their disabled child a school place or shared the agony of a family whose mentally ill son was jailed instead of being cared for in hospital.
These things happen - all too often. Yes, we have the common law as a bulwark for our rights, a free press and a democratic Parliament. But for people whose basic rights are violated in these ways, those protections simply do not kick in soon enough, if at all.
Australia kept children behind barbed wire in mandatory detention for years. Through our free press and tireless advocates, we found out most of those children became mentally and physically ill. Several tried to kill themselves. After years of media coverage and pressure on our Parliament, this barbaric treatment of children stopped, but not in time to prevent many of them suffering long-term damage.
If a human rights act - a charter of rights - had been in place, mandatory detention of children would have been publicly measured against these rights. The policy would have been found wanting much earlier, perhaps even before it was implemented.
If public servants and others hired by government to carry out its polices were trained to recognise and respect human rights laid out in Australian law, much of the poor treatment inflicted on the disabled, the old, and children would not occur.
It is no use telling a single mother who has been kicked out of public housing because of bureaucratic bungling that the common law is perfect.
Strange that the vociferous opponents of protecting rights by an act of Parliament are rich, powerful men: former NSW premier Bob Carr; former High Court judge Ian Callinan, QC; and successful barrister Peter Faris, QC. They are light years away from the mentally ill public housing tenant or the wheelchair-bound young man trying to get a job. So they argue against a human rights law, claiming concern about "unelected judges" invading the territory of our parliamentary legislators.
These arguments could only apply if a constitutional US-type bill was being proposed. But such a bill has been ruled out of the Government's human rights consultation and ruled out by more than 70 community organisations in a human rights network I have been working with.

We are discussing an ordinary act of Parliament that can only be changed by Parliament. If a court found a particular government policy violated Parliament's own human rights law, it would be up to Parliament to respond, to change the policy or keep it. But we would all know about it and our elected politicians would be under pressure to justify to voters why, for example, mandatory detention was to be maintained.
Those who oppose such a law must know this. Do they persist in arguing against something that is not going to happen because the status quo has served them so well?
They know as well as anyone that indigenous Australians suffer terrible disadvantage and often appalling living conditions. Do opponents of a human rights bill believe that the status quo gives Aborigines a fair deal in relation to the law, education and health?
The solutions for indigenous problems are complex, requiring many actions from government, business and the community. But might these opponents not consider, along with all interested Australians, that the blinding evidence of the denial of a fair go provides a good case for Parliament making a new law to protect those missing out? This law would be only one step but an important one towards dignity and security for all in Australia.
In true democratic spirit, the Rudd Government has set up a public consultation, with a panel of impressive Australians, to hear the views of all on how to protect human rights better in this country. I hope all Australians who know of human rights failures in any context will let the panel know what they think. This consultation must not be derailed by a few power-wielding men. It is a chance to move forward towards a fair go for all.
Susan Ryan, AO, is a former Labor senator and chair of the Human Rights Act for Australia Campaign.
 By Invitation Only is a space for people of influence to have their say. Edited by Kerry-Anne Walsh. kwalsh@fairfaxmedia.com.auSource: The Sun-Herald

No comments: