The Human Rights Law Centre’s Ben Schokman said a Charter of Human Rights is a cost-effective way to promote human rights and would have significant social and economic benefits.

“Human rights are not optional extras. Experience in other jurisdictions such as Victoria and the ACT demonstrates that human rights protections in fact provide substantial economic and social benefits with minimal implementation costs,” said Mr Schokman.

Tasmanian Attorney-General Brian Wightman has said that work has stalled on establishing a Charter of Human Rights and associated Human Rights Commission because Tasmania can’t afford it. However, other important legislation would still go ahead this year in Tasmania despite budget cuts.

“Human rights violations have both human and economic costs. Investing in the protection of rights for all Tasmanians is crucial and is even more important during times of austerity. Tough economic times mean that individuals are more likely to have their human rights infringed,” explained Mr Schokman.

In its first four years of operation, the Victorian Charter of Human Rights cost only 50 cents per Victorian per year.

“Over the last four years Victorians have enjoyed improved human rights protections for less than the price of a cup of coffee. That’s a bargain.

“A Charter of Human Rights is a practical and cost effective way to protect and promote human rights. If potential violations of human rights laws can be weeded out during the early stages when laws and policies are being developed, then costly challenges and the need for changes are much less likely to be an issue further down the track.

“The Tasmanian Government must adopt the key recommendations of the Tasmanian Law Reform Institute and expedite the introduction of a Charter of Human Rights for the benefit of all Tasmanians” said Mr Schokman.

For further comments, please contact Ben Schokman on 0403 622 810 or ben.schokman@hrlc.org.au

Background

In October 2007, the Tasmanian Law Reform Institute published its Report on A Charter of Rights for Tasmania which recommended that a Charter of Human Rights be enacted in Tasmania.

In October 2010, over 200 organisations and individuals responded to a Directions Paper released by the Justice Department proposing a Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities for Tasmania.

A copy of the Human Rights Law Centre’s submission on the Directions Paper is available online here.

According to Ben Schokman of the Human Rights Law Centre, the proposed legislation is incompatible with the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and, in its present form, is unlikely to address the disadvantage faced by many Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities.

In its submission to a Senate Committee inquiry into the Stronger Futures in the Northern Territory Bill 2011 and related Bills, the HRLC has expressed particular concern about:

• the lack of meaningful engagement with and participation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities and individuals who are affected by the current Northern Territory Emergency Response measures and who will be subject to the proposed Stronger Futures measures;
• failures of the proposed Stronger Futures measures to comply with human rights obligations and principles, particularly given the lack of clear and cogent evidence to support the continuation of many of the measures; and
• ultimately, the high likelihood that the proposed Stronger Futures measures will not be successful in fulfilling their intended purpose to address the disadvantage faced by many Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities and individuals.

The proposed legislation extends many aspects of the measures introduced in 2007 as part of the Northern Territory Emergency Response and continues to raise serious human rights concerns.

While the HRLC welcomes the government’s commitment to protect children, ensure community safety and build a better future for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities, there are major concerns relating to the process of development of the Stronger Futures measures, as well as the nature of the measures themselves.

Further information about the Bills and the Senate Committee’s Inquiry is available at http://www.aph.gov.au/senate/committee/clac_ctte/strong_future_nt_11/index.htm.

Criminal trials have commenced this week in Jayapura, against five Papuan political activists charged with criminal offenses following their involvement in last year’s peaceful assembly at the Third Papuan People’s Congress. The activists were among the hundreds of people arrested after Indonesian police and military forcibly shut down the gathering, killing at least three people and injuring approximately 90 others.

HRLC spokesperson, Tom Clarke, said the fundamental rights of all persons to freedom of expression, peaceful assembly and association are protected by International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights – which Indonesia ratified in 2006.

“These fundamental human rights must be recognised and respected by Indonesia. The exercise of such democratic rights and freedoms must be protected by law, not criminalised.

“Australia’s UN Security Council bid pitches us as a ‘principled advocate of human rights for all’. This is a prime opportunity for the Foreign Minister to take a principled stand against human rights abuses on our doorstep,” Mr Clarke said.

The Papuan activists, Forkorus Yaboisembut, Edison Waromi, August Makbrowen Senay, Dominikus Sorabut and Selpius Bobii, are facing charges of treason in a region where people may be imprisoned for simply raising the West Papuan ‘Morning Star’ flag.

ILWP’s Jennifer Robinson called on the Australian Government to use its unique relationship with Indonesia to encourage the authorities to demonstrate their respect for human rights by dropping charges against the five activists.

“These trials should stop immediately, and Australia should do everything it can to help that happen. The prosecution of activists for peacefully expressing their political views has no place in a modern democracy. The Australian Foreign Minister, his department and embassy staff in Indonesia should make it very clear that the Australian Government firmly supports human rights and freedom of expression in the region,” Ms Robinson said.

Ms Robinson also called on the Australian Government to deploy embassy staff to observe the legal proceedings for the purpose of ensuring that the protesters receive a fair trial.

The trial is scheduled to resume on Wednesday 8 February.

For further comments:
ILWP’s Jenifer Robinson, +447767707566 (UK) +61423871773 (Aus)
HRLC’s Tom Clarke on Tom.clarke@hrlc.org.au or +61(0)422 545 763

The Bill, introduced by Greens’ Senator Sarah Hanson-Young, responds to concerns about Australia’s treatment of children and persons claiming to be children who are suspected of people smuggling crimes.

The Bill was introduced after revelations that a number of Indonesian children arriving in Australia onboard people smuggling boats were being detained and imprisoned. Some of those children were detained for significant amounts of time in Australia, including in adult correctional facilities. A number of those children were detained on the basis of now discredited wrist x-ray analysis techniques.

If passed, the Bill would make a number of important changes including:

• enshrining the ‘benefit of the doubt’ principle in domestic law to ensure that persons who claim to be children are treated as such, unless a court decides otherwise;
• encouraging best-practice when it comes to assessing and proving a suspect’s age;
• enacting time limits to reduce waiting periods for the laying of criminal charges and applying for age determination hearings before a Magistrate; and
• ensuring that no child charged with people-smuggling offences is detained in an adult correctional facility.

The HRLC considers that that enactment of the Bill is necessary to give effect to Australia’s obligations under international human rights law, including the Convention on the Rights of the Child and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

In a major submission to the Commonwealth Attorney-General, who is reviewing the laws, the Human Rights Law Centre has called for the Government to use this critical opportunity to address gaps in the laws and strengthen existing protections.

The HRLC’s Director of Policy and Campaigns, Rachel Ball, said there are a number of federal anti-discrimination laws in Australia and the Government’s decision to consolidate them into a single Act should be welcomed. However, Ms Ball warned that without updating the substance of the laws being consolidated, existing flaws would continue to hamper Australia’s efforts to eliminate discrimination and continue to put Australia in breach of international law.

“There’s not much point if the process is simply going to result in all the old outdated laws being rolled into a ‘new’ Act. This opportunity to weed out existing problems should be used to also modernise and strengthen Australia’s equality laws to ensure they meet our international human rights obligations,” Ms Ball said.

The HRLC urges the Government to make certain the new Act includes a positive duty to eliminate discrimination and promote equality, similar to the current laws in Victoria and the United Kingdom.

“To create a society free from discrimination, you need your equality laws to be proactive. So as well as providing more accessible and user-friendly remedies for individual cases of discrimination, laws needs to adress structural inequalities if they are to bring about substantive equality,” Ms Ball said.

Specifically, the HRLC recommends equipping the Australian Human Rights Commission with investigative and compliance powers allowing the commission to issue compliance notices to organizations and enter binding agreements with them.

The HRLC’s submission builds a case for expanding protections to cover all areas of public life and additional attributes, including a person’s status as homeless or a victim of domestic violence.

“Research has shown that discrimination is a major causal factor of homelessness and can systematically exclude people from access to goods, services, the justice system, health care, employment and housing. This is something that improved equality laws could help to address,” Ms Ball said.

The HRLC also calls on the Federal Government to reconsider its position regarding permanent exemptions for specific areas of public life – including the exemption for religious organisations which the Government has indicated it will not be altering.

“Current exemptions for religious bodies are arbitrary and outdated. Religious bodies should not be above the law, yet current laws effectively give them a free license to discriminate. This needs to be overhauled,” Ms Ball said.

The submission provides an overview of how existing technical and legal barriers to the elimination of discrimination could be removed. For example, sharing the burden of proof between a person making a complaint and the respondent along with reforming the problematic comparative tests for discrimination, would make equality law more accessible and therefore tangible for general members of the public.

The Government is due to release an exposure draft of the legislation soon.

A summary of the HRLC submission as well as a full copy can be found online at:  http://www.hrlc.org.au/content/realising-the-right-to-equality/

For further information or comments please contact:
Rachel Ball, HRLC Director of Policy and Campaigns, on 0434 045 919 or rachel.ball@hrlc.org.au

The HRLC recommends the Consolidated Act reflect the aims of promoting substantive equality and eliminating discrimination. The submission also makes a number of key recommendations for strengthening protections and making the law more accessible, including:

• making explicit the duty to promote equality and eliminate discrimination;
• guaranteeing equality before the law and prohibiting discrimination in all areas of public life;
• simplifying the test for discrimination by removing unnecessary technicalities such as the ‘comparator test’ and clarifying the duty to make reasonable adjustments;
• sharing the burden of proof when discrimination complaints are heard by the Courts;
• prohibiting harassment and vilification on the basis of all attributes;
• expanding protections to include gender identity; sexual orientation; intersex status; religion, criminal record, political opinion, nationality, industrial activity, family/carer responsibilities, homelessness, experiences of domestic/family violence and other relevant status
• clarifying that intersectional discrimination, which is based on two or more protected attributes, is also unlawful;
• removing arbitrary and outdated blanket exemptions for religious bodies, clubs, partnerships or voluntary work and replacing these with a broad ‘general exceptions test’ which requires a principled and balanced assessment on a case-by-case basis;
• relieving the burden placed on complaints, for example, by reducing the risk of being ordered to pay a respondent’s legal costs; and
• strengthening the Australian Human Rights Commission’s powers, for example, by enabling it to inquire and investigate broader range of issues, make binding agreements, issue compliance notices and run cases before the courts.

If adopted, the HRLC’s recommendations would not only bring Australia in line with our international human rights obligations, it would also contribute to a fairer, healthier, more inclusive and prosperous Australia.

“All political parties should show principled leadership and support the Expert Panel’s recommendations. The evidence is clear that Australians support equality, fairness, recognition and respect for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples,” says the Human Rights Law Centre’s Director of International Human Rights Advocacy, Ben Schokman.

“Not all citizens are treated equally under the Australian Constitution. While it is commonly accepted that racial discrimination has no place in the Australian community, our Constitution continues to allow discrimination on the basis of race.”

“Given the Australian Constitution was drafted in the 1890s, it is not surprising that our foundational document still reflects some the racist attitudes of the time,” Mr Schokman said. “The Expert Panel’s recommendations provide us with a rare opportunity to update the Australian Constitution to better reflect our community’s contemporary values.”

The Expert Panel, which consists of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander leaders, constitutional experts and politicians from all parties, carried out an in-depth community consultation process, travelling to 84 urban and remote locations to host public events and also receiving 3,600 public submissions.

“Throughout the consultation process, Australians have made it clear that they want meaningful recognition for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples in the constitution and that they want any racist elements removed. The Human Rights Law Centre also strongly considers that the Australian Constitution should promote equality and prevent and protect against racial discrimination,” Mr Schokman said.

In its submission to the Expert Panel in September 2011, the Human Rights Law Centre identified gaps in Australia’s compliance with its international human rights obligations, highlighting the need for constitutional reform.

“In recent years, a number of highly respected, independent international human rights bodies and experts have made specific recommendations in areas where Australia is failing to meet its legal obligations, particularly the rights of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. The Expert Panel’s recommendations show that Australians agree. Recognition and equality in the Australian Constitution would be a small but crucial step to help address the serious disadvantage and discrimination that is experienced by many Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples.”

A copy of the Human Rights Law Centre’s submission to the Expert Panel is available at http://www.hrlc.org.au/content/topics/indigenous/towards-constitutional-recognition-for-aboriginal-and-torres-strait-islander-peoples-29-sept-2011/.

“There is no place for mandatory sentencing in a healthy democracy governed by the rule of law,” said Rachel Ball, the HRLC’s Director of Policy and Campaigns.

The Bill to be introduced by Greens Senator Sarah Hanson-Young seeks to remove the mandatory sentence of 5 years with a 3 year non-parole period that flows from the offence of aggravated people smuggling.

Ms Ball – who last November gave evidence about the laws to the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee – said the mandatory sentencing requirements of the Act prevent judges from exercising common sense or discretion. The laws have recently been criticized by one judge as imposing “savage penalties upon the ignorant, who are simply being exploited by organisers”.

“We’re not talking here about the organisers of people smuggling operations. These are generally young men or boys recruited from small Indonesian villages with the promise of a bit of cash for jobs like cooking rice,” Ms Ball said.

Mandatory sentences for people smuggling offences contravene the prohibition on arbitrary detention and the right to a fair trial contained in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. These principles require that the punishment fit the crime, but mandatory sentencing prevents the Court from differentiating between serious and minor offending and from considering the particular circumstances of the individual.

The HRLC is urging MPs of all parties to use Senator Hanson-Young’s Bill as an opportunity to fix flawed legislation that puts Australia out of step with other modern democracies.

“Even the Government majority on the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee has expressed concern regarding the impacts of the application of mandatory sentencing on individuals hired as boat crew for people smuggling vessels and has recommended that the Attorney-General review the legislation,” Ms Ball said.

“This regime threatens to see hundreds of impoverished Indonesian fishermen and boys jailed for a minimum of 3 years. It violates human rights, costs taxpayers tens of millions of dollars and is likely to have no impact on people smuggling. It’s time we fixed it,” Ms Ball said.

For further details or comments, contact Rachel Ball on 0434 045 919

Following Nicola Roxon’s appointment as Attorney-General on 15 December 2011, the Human Rights Law Centre prepared a Briefing Paper for the Attorney on Human Rights Iniatiatives for 2012-14.

The Briefing Paper details seven actions which  the Attorney-General could take to demonstrate principled human rights leadership, promote equality and human dignity, enhance government accountability and do better in guaranteeing fairness for all.

We asked some of Australia’s leading human rights advocates, activists and academics to tell us, in less than 100 words, what the Attorney’s top human rights priority or initiative for 2012 should be. We’ll be sharing more of them with you in the coming days and weeks.

Edwina MacDonald is Law Reform and Policy Coordinator with Women’s Legal Services NSW

The Attorney should prioritise eliminating violence against women. With one in three Australian women experiencing violence since the age of 15, violence against women is one of Australia’s most widespread human rights abuses. The recent amendments to the Family Law Act were a good step but much remains to be done. The Attorney should start by prohibiting discrimination against victims or survivors of domestic violence, implementing the Australian Law Reform Commission’s report on Family Violence and establishing an independent monitoring mechanism for the National Plan to Reduce Violence Against Women and Children, as recommended through Australia’s Universal Periodic Review.

Rachel Ball is Director of Policy and Campaigns with the Human Rights Law Centre

It is not well-known that the Australian Attorney General presides over a regime under which suspected people smugglers, including children, are detained without charge for significant periods (in some cases, over 12 months) without access to a lawyer or judicial review of their detention.
The vast majority of those detained are young crew-members from impoverished Indonesian fishing villages who had no involvement in the organisation of people smuggling operations.
The Attorney General should act quickly to ensure that these people are afforded immediate access to a lawyer, are brought promptly before a court and are not subject to prolonged and arbitrary pre-charge detention.

Claire Mallinson is National Director of Amnesty International Australia

With the start of a New Year and a new Attorney General in place there is a real opportunity to address the serious human rights violations that are currently occurring.
Amnesty International’s 142,000 supporters in Australia and our millions more across the world are looking to the new Attorney General to show leadership and implement the Government’s statements of commitment to human rights.
Real change, including significant legislative and policy reform must occur to ensure human rights are protected, including implementation of the 145 recommendations that the UN Human Rights Council made to the Australian government earlier this year.
A genuine commitment to upholding human rights needs to be at the core of Nicola Roxon’s work.

John Tobin is an Associate Professor at Melbourne Law School and a member of the HRLC Advisory Committee
The prioritisation of efforts to address human rights considerations is always fraught with danger. But the reality of limited resources means that prioritisation is a fact of political life. Given this reality, the top priority for the new Attorney General in 2012 must be ensuring the successful implementation of the Human Rights (Parliamentary Scrutiny) Act 2011. The requirement to scrutinize all new legislation in light of international human rights standards must not be reduced to a shallow process of compliance. Instead, the Attorney General must lead from the front and demonstrate that substantive engagement with international human rights standards leads to more effective and equitable legislative outcomes.

Lucy McKernan is Manager of Strategic Projects with the Public Interest Law Clearing House (Vic)
That a five year old girl can be lawfully refused admission to a government funded kindergarten on the basis of her parents’ same-sex relationship, is a disgrace.
Even the Acting Bishop for the relevant Catholic diocese was ‘appalled’ by the discriminatory decision, yet Australian laws allow this form of discrimination by religious organisations.
Attorney-General Roxon should remove the blanket exceptions for religious organisations permitting them to discriminate on the grounds of sex and age. At the very least, the Attorney should prohibit discrimination by religious organisations in respect of their government funded functions and require greater transparency from organisations seeking to rely on the exceptions. Importantly, the Attorney should also show leadership by encouraging her State counterparts to follow suit.

Les Malezer is Co-Chair of the National Congress of Australia’s First Peoples
The priority for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples is to gain recognition and respect as first peoples, and acknowledgement and protection of Indigenous rights.
In 2012, the Attorney General must make the Human Rights Framework effective, leading cultural change across government. For Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples this includes giving the recommendations and reports of the Australian Human Rights Commission, including the ATSI Social Justice Commissioner, real authority, not just political lip service. The Government must implement and be accountable to reports on human rights by national and international authorities. There should also be a focus on judicial and legal education, to ensure legal professionals understand Indigenous rights and can properly and impartially resolve cases regarding those rights.

Lucy Adams is a Senior Lawyer with the PILCH Homeless Persons’ Legal Clinic
On census night in 2006, approximately 105,000 Australians were homeless, including approximately 7,480 families. Australia needs a human rights-based framework for addressing homelessness.
InVictoria, we have seen how legislative protection of human rights can work in practice through the Victorian Charter of Human Rights. The HPLC has relied on the Charter’s binding obligations on public bodies – to give proper consideration to human rights in decision-making and to act compatibly with human rights – to avoid the eviction of 42 people, including 21 children, from social housing into homelessness.
Enforceable human rights obligations, including national homelessness legislation that enshrines the right to adequate housing, are critical to Australia’s ability to effectively prevent and address homelessness.

Professor Andrew Lynch is Director of the Gilbert + Tobin Centre of Public Law
Alongside the perennial challenge of how Australia treats those who seek asylum here, the Attorney-General’s particular human rights priority for 2012 must be handling the lead-up to the referendum in the interests of Indigenous Australians. When the Expert Panel reports on its consultation process in mid-January, the ball is firmly back in the government’s court. I want to see less emphasis on simply ‘constitutional recognition’ and greater willingness to seize this once-in a generation opportunity to place a meaningful guarantee of racial equality in our Constitution for the protection of all in our community, but most importantly our First Peoples.

Kristen Hilton is Director of Civil Law, Access & Equity with Victoria Legal Aid
Under the Federal Government’s Access to Justice Framework, better and more transparent primary decision making is a key goal. The Attorney needs to make this a reality.
Statistics show that nearly a third of challenged Centrelink decisions are changed on internal review and more are changed at higher tribunals. Similarly, poor primary decision by the Department of Immigration on refugee applications has meant that two out of three decisions have been overturned on appeal. In one of the least transparent exercises of government decision making, asylum seekers who have received negative security assessments from ASIO not only have no right to appeal, they have no right to know the reasons behind the decision.
Restoring public confidence in effective, transparent decision making that is based on principles of fairness and justice and a respect of individuals’ rights would greatly improve access to justice and should be a key priority.

Rodney Croome is a Director of the Australian Coalition for Equality
The Attorney’s priorities should be as follows:
1. Comprehensive national laws prohibiting sexuality and gender identity discrimination and vilification are long overdue. “Comprehensive” means no exemptions for church schools and welfare agencies.
2. It’s not enough for federal politicians to support marriage equality. If reform is to occur it needs heterosexual, front-bench champions like the Attorney-General. She must also remove the bureaucratic barriers to same-sex couples marrying overseas, immediately!
3. The civil and political rights of LGBTI people are regularly violated and need the protection of a Charter of Rights.
4. The implementation of these reforms will not be easy. The Attorney must establish an LGBTI reference group to help her Department, similar to groups at the state level.

Anna Cody is Director of Kingsford Legal Centre
The Australian Government has a great opportunity to make life fairer for disadvantaged people through the consolidation of Commonwealth anti-discrimination laws project. This has the potential to impact on the most disadvantaged in our community – Indigenous peoples, particularly Indigenous women and Indigenous people with disability. The Attorney General’s Department has made a great start and should ensure creation of a proactive regulatory approach which doesn’t rely on individuals making complaints and can address systemic discrimination. For example a new framework can look at the experience of Indigenous women in getting secure, affordable housing and eradicate institutional barriers.

David Manne is Executive Director of the Refugee and Immigration Legal Centre
There are a range of areas where Australia’s treatment of asylum-seekers and refugees is inconsistent with international human rights obligations and domestic legal norms. A pressing reform priority is the management of ASIO security assessments. A growing number of people have been recognised as refugees but remain indefinitely detained due to negative security assessments, without any explanation of the basis on which they supposedly pose a security risk, and without any opportunity to respond to such concerns. This process needs to be brought in line with international and domestic principles of natural justice, and in particular, the provision of a meaningful opportunity to respond to adverse information, to challenge it, and access to independent review.

Professor Spencer Zifcak is President of Liberty Victoria
The first major announcement Nicola Roxon should make is that the Government will appoint a Commonwealth Children’s Commissioner. The Commissioner’s primary task should be to act as an advocate for children’s rights and interests. Children in many categories are significantly disadvantaged. These include Indigenous children, refugee children, homeless children, children with physical and mental disabilities, and children in state care. Yet they have no official representative to articulate their needs and their opinions. It is time they had one. The UN Committee on the Rights of the Child has recommended that Australia take this initiative. The A-G should seize this opportunity to make children’s rights real.

Stephen Keim SC is President of Australian Lawyers for Human Rights
The challenge for any Australian Attorney-General is to put human rights principles ahead of political convenience.
This means standing up for accountability in respect of alleged torturers and war criminals, whether they are from the United States or Sri Lanka, on the one hand, or a conveniently deposed Libyan dictator on the other.
It is no more honourable, now, to encourage an international culture of impunity than it was when a former Australian government stood aside and allowed Australians, David Hicks and Mamdouh Habib, to be rendered, tortured and illegally imprisoned for years on end.

Julian Burnside AO QC is a leading human rights barrister and refugee advocate
Apart from a Human Rights Act, the Attorney-General should make sure that ASIO decisions concerning refugees are timely and effectively reviewable. Boat people can remain in detention for many months – more than a year in some cases – after being assessed as refugees, waiting for an ASIO assessment. People assessed as refugees but adversely assessed by ASIO face lifetime detention, without being given reasons. ASIO refuses to give reasons for an adverse assessment, thus making judicial review extremely difficult. Al Kateb’s case means that a refugee who is refused a visa (because of ASIO) and cannot be removed from Australia (because they are a refugee) can stay in detention forever. The A-G needs to ask whether this fits our conception of a just society.

Robin Banks is Tasmania’s Anti-Discrimination Commissioner
Work has begun on the important work of consolidating federal anti-discrimination laws. This is a once in a decade opportunity not only to consolidate the laws but to modernise them and bring them into line with international developments in equality law.
At a minimum, the federal government should provide leadership on the next generation of equality laws and ensure federal protection against discrimination for all those currently protected by state or territory laws, with the capacity to readily extend the protection to newly emerging disadvantaged groups. A proactive compliance model should be at the core of the reforms.

Chris Sidoti is an international human rights expert and a member of the HRLC’s Advisory Committee
Rob McClelland was a good Attorney General for human rights. But he failed the biggest need and challenge, to achieve an Australian Charter of Rights – not through lack of personal commitment, it has to be said, but through Prime Ministerial and Labor Party opposition.
Nicola Roxon’s challenge is the unfinished business:
1. having the new parliamentary human rights committee elected and put to work quickly and effectively
2. completing outstanding treaty ratifications: the Optional Protocol to the Convention Against Torture, the Migrant Workers Convention, the Optional Protocols on complaints of violations of economic, social and cultural rights and of the rights of children
3. ensuring that, at long last, Australia’s regime for boat people conforms with international human rights law
4. most importantly, reviving work to get us an Australian Charter of Rights by 2014.

Professor Hilary Charlesworth is Director of the Centre for International Governance and Justice at ANU
The 2011 Universal Periodic Review of Australia provides a useful agenda for the new Attorney-General. While various aspects of the Human Rights Council’s recommendations have been accepted by Australia, some of the major concerns have been rejected or sidelined. These include ensuring that the treatment of asylum-seekers is consistent with our international commitments and that Indigenous Australians can enjoy the rights set out in the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Taking the UPR seriously not only at the domestic level but also in our foreign and aid policies would be a fruitful human rights investment for Australia.

Catherine Branson QC is President of the Australian Human Rights Commission
My hope is that the new Attorney-General’s priorities will include bringing along her fellow ministers and parliamentarians in making the new human rights scrutiny processes effective and seeing through the consolidation of federal discrimination laws process to create an effective national equality law. She should also ensure the ratification of the Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture and establish a national system of monitoring places of detention. Finally, the Attorney must ensure that human rights considerations inform policy in all areas of her portfolio, for example in security policy where there is an urgent need for a system enabling review of adverse security assessments.

Nicolas Patrick is a Partner and Head of Pro Bono with DLA Piper
I would prioritise the human rights of people in places of detention.
A significant proportion of Australia’s prison population suffer from mental illness. There is a causal and consequential link between imprisonment and mental illness. Australia is warehousing people with mental health problems in prisons, where mental health care is entirely inadequate.
The number of juveniles in detention is also a major concern, along with the over-representation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. These issues raise significant concerns with respect to Australia’s obligations under the Convention against Torture, the Convention on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and require the urgent attention of the Australian Government.

Professor David Kinley is Chair in Human Rights Law at Sydney Law School
Dear Attorney,
Pay very close attention to the newly established parliamentary human rights scrutiny committee. This is a sleeping giant, whose potential power and range is underappreciated; indeed largely unnoticed. Having authority to scrutinise all bills for compliance with all Australia’s international human rights obligations goes far beyond the scope of any equivalent mechanism overseas, and it will embarrass and expose. So, heads up for the enhanced human rights scrutiny of the next wave of immigration, anti-terrorism or workplace relations proposals.
PS. Don’t take up smoking this year.

Ed Santow is Chief Executive Officer of the Public Interest Advocacy Centre
Over the last few years, the Australian Government has made progress in improving the protection of our basic rights. However, Australia still lacks a comprehensive human rights law. This increases the vulnerability of already disadvantaged people — like Indigenous Australians, people experiencing homelessness and people with a disability. To rectify this, the new Attorney-General should take the lead in fully implementing the recommendations of the 2009 National Human Rights Consultation, including by enacting a comprehensive Human Rights Act.

Nicky Friedman is Head of Pro Bono & Community Programs with Allens Arthur Robinson
The new Attorney should ensure that asylum seekers can access and exercise their legal rights.
Since the High Court’s decision in M61, which confirmed that review by the courts is available to asylum seekers who are processed offshore, legal assistance providers have been hit with floods of applications for legal representation in judicial review proceedings. Despite the huge increase in demand, no extra funds have been provided and legal aid and community legal centres are turning away desperate people. The Attorney should provide funds to boost the capacity of refugee and immigration community legal centres and legal aid commissions to deal with these matters immediately.

Professor Sarah Joseph is Director of the Castan Centre for Human Rights Law
There are many human rights priorities for Australiain 2012, such as properly implementing the new Human Rights (Parliamentary Scrutiny) Act and vastly improving this country’s impoverished refugee debate. As the number one priority, however, I would say that the Australian Government must take the lead in vigorously supporting amendment of the Australian Constitution to better recognise and protect the rights of Indigenous peoples, and to educate Australian people about the need for such amendment. A campaign against Constitutional recognition has already begun (see eg, J Albrechtsen in The Australian on 14 December). The government and the opposition must get on the front foot to counter the scaremongering.