Outgoing President of the Australian Human Rights Commission Rosalind Croucher has used an address at the National Press Club to call for a national Human Rights Act.
Speaking on Wednesday afternoon, Croucher said over the past seven years as president of the Commission, she’s become increasingly convinced of the central importance of having a Human Rights Act in Australia’s democracy.
She said there is “no doubt” that successive federal governments have failed to protect all people in Australia because of a lack of protection of human rights.
“For a country that prides itself on the fair go, which values decency and dignity, it is troubling that we don’t give meaning to our long held values in our national legal framework. Many of the things we say we value are not, in fact protected adequately in Australian law,” Croucher said.
“These include freedom of expression, freedom of movement and the right to protest, freedom to live in accordance with one’s own beliefs and values, the right to essential standards for a dignified life such as access to basic health care, housing, education, a healthy environment and work as well as protections against homelessness, hunger and poor working conditions.”
Currently, Australia is the only Western country that does not have a human rights act. Recently, a joint parliamentary committee on human rights delivered its final report to parliament, recommending that the government legislate to establish one.
“A Human Rights Act would place rights at the forefront of our thinking about policies and laws,” Croucher says. “Respect, dignity, fairness and equality would be central considerations not just an afterthought.”
Currently, three states and territories – Victoria, the ACT and Queensland – have their own acts, but there is not consistency across the nation.
A national Human Rights Act would create legal protections for the human rights of Australians, and deliver ways to seek justice if people’s rights are breached. It would also build a culture of rights awareness.
“A Human Rights Act is not a revolutionary proposal,” Croucher said at the National Press Club.
“There is nothing exceptional about the idea that when making laws or taking actions or decisions under them, that parliamentarians and public officials should consider the impact of their actions in relation to humans and their rights.
“Nor is it exceptional that they should favor options which positively protect people’s human rights or minimise the harm caused to them. And there is nothing new in the idea that if people’s rights are breached, they should have access to effective remedies.”
Croucher gave some examples of when a Human Rights Act would work to protect different groups of Australians.
“It will protect women exiting a violent relationship in their interactions with Centrelink about social security,” she said.
“It will protect veterans at risk of homelessness and struggling with mental health issues. It will protect people being mistreated in aged care facilities or subject to unreasonable restrictions on their movement. There is no sound basis for denying such protections.
“Let’s protect people’s rights instead of having another generation of royal commissions forensically examining the damage we inflicted on people by not respecting their rights in the first place.”