Human Rights Act

An inquiry has recommended Australia legislate a Human Rights Act. Here’s why we need one

Retrieved on:

Dimanche, juin 2, 2024

Australia is the only Western democracy that does not have a national Human Rights Act, but this may be about to change.

Key Points:

Australia is the only Western democracy that does not have a national Human Rights Act, but this may be about to change.
After an inquiry lasting more than a year, the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights has just delivered its report to parliament.

A ‘patchwork quilt’ approach

Australia has a notoriously “patchwork quilt” approach to protecting human rights.
Our existing anti-discrimination laws do not provide adequate protection against government conduct that violates human rights.
A federal Human Rights Act in Australia would go a long way to fixing our current unequal and lopsided approach to protecting human rights.

International broken promises

It’s more than 40 years since Australia ratified the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR).
When the government committed to these two landmark international treaties (along with more than 170 other countries), it promised to implement these human rights laws in Australia.

What would a Human Rights Act look like?

Helpfully, the parliamentary committee’s report includes a model Human Rights Act the government can use as a draft bill. The model legislation includes important fundamental rights, currently not well protected in Australia, such as,
protection of children
protection of families
freedom of thought, conscience and religion
rights to culture
right to health
right to adequate standard of living
right to a healthy environment.

What difference would laws like this make?

Having a national Human Rights Act will not fix every human rights problem we have in Australia.
Having a Human Rights Act will make government more attuned to respecting human rights and more accountable for the consequences if it acts contrary to human rights.
This is because the proposed Human Rights Act allows reasonable and justifiable limits to be placed on rights.

So, will it actually happen?

Report finds ‘clear need’ for an Australian Human Rights Act. What difference would it make?

Retrieved on:

Dimanche, juin 2, 2024

This week, the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights reported on its Inquiry into Australia’s Human Rights Framework. By majority, it recommended the federal government introduce an Australian Human Rights Act.

Key Points:

This week, the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights reported on its Inquiry into Australia’s Human Rights Framework. By majority, it recommended the federal government introduce an Australian Human Rights Act.
This represents a generational milestone to greatly improve human rights protections for Australia. It remains to be seen whether the federal government will accept this main recommendation, but is a significant development.

Where did it come from?

This put the question of whether we should have an Australian Human Rights Act back on the political agenda.
It recommended a new national human rights framework with an Australian Human Rights Act as its “centrepiece”.

Why an Australian Human Rights Act?

Human rights acts already exist in three states and territories – the Australian Capital Territory, Victoria and Queensland.
Every Australian deserves to have their human rights respected and protected, including at the federal level.
Access to human rights protection should not depend on where a person lives or which level of government carries the responsibility.

What did the parliamentary inquiry report say?

It said these showed human rights legislation “could help embed a rights-respecting culture” and “has not led to overwhelming litigation”.
The report made 17 recommendations, including the enactment of an Australian Human Rights Act that broadly reflects the commission’s model.
The report recommended strengthening scrutiny by government and parliament of policy and legislation for compatibility with human rights.
By contrast, a minority of the committee recommended an Australian Human Rights Act not be introduced.

Where to next?

Suella Braverman: why the home secretary can't force the police to cancel a pro-Palestine march

Retrieved on:

Jeudi, novembre 9, 2023

The UK home secretary, Suella Braverman, has reached new heights with her criticism of the Metropolitan police over its handling of pro-Palestinian marches.

Key Points:

The UK home secretary, Suella Braverman, has reached new heights with her criticism of the Metropolitan police over its handling of pro-Palestinian marches.
In an op-ed for the Times, reportedly not cleared by Number 10, Braverman accused police of a double standard, treating left-wing marches more leniently than right-wing ones.
Over the last few days, the Met police have been under pressure to shut down marches planned for Armistice Day in London.

Principles of policing

But perhaps more shocking is that her comments amount to a public accusation that the police are breaking one of the fundamental principles of British policing, which is to be non-partisan.
His blueprint for policing included the clear objective that the police would be non-partisan: free from any political interference and not favouring any group, religion, ethnicity or other section of society more than another.

Governing the police

The local police and crime commissioner is accountable to the public and sets a local policing plan.
And the home office sets the police pay arrangements, police regulations and standards and provides 50% of police budgets.

It is clear then that Peel’s original aspiration that the police should not become a tool for politicians to misuse is still, on paper at least, alive and well. But the most senior politician responsible for policing is attempting to interfere with their operational independence regarding public order policing – and perhaps bully them into making operational decisions which satisfy a partisan viewpoint.

Undermining trust in the police

Policing by consent is an oft-used phrase, but it simply means that law-abiding people are prepared to help the police as witnesses to crime, or providing intelligence, while criminals begrudgingly accept the legitimacy of the police.
Whatever Braverman’s motivation, this precious contract between the police and the British people is now being seriously damaged.

John Fox is a member of the Labour Party.

Queensland is not only trampling the rights of children, it is setting a concerning legal precedent

Retrieved on:

Mardi, août 29, 2023

This was not the first time it had taken such a step.

Key Points:

This was not the first time it had taken such a step.
These moves have attracted a significant amount of criticism because they come so soon after the state’s Human Rights Act was adopted.
In addition, overriding the Human Rights Act twice could create a pattern we should be extremely concerned about.

International human rights protections

International conventions broadly obligate parties to make the best interests of children a primary consideration in all actions concerning them.
These conventions and applicable international standards also assert that the incarceration of children should be a last resort and juveniles should be treated in an age-appropriate way in criminal justice proceedings.
The Queensland government relied on these specific international human rights protections when it drafted its Human Rights Act, which I have extensively reviewed in my new book (written with Peter Billings).

Youth offenders and detention

But consequences for youth offenders must take into account their age, intellectual and physical development and disabilities, and potential for rehabilitation.
In other words, youth offenders should not be held in detention facilities with adults.
However, there is overwhelming evidence that youth detention does not necessarily make communities safer or deter or rehabilitate young offenders.

Concerning trend of legislative overrides

In 2015, a review of the charter recommended the repeal of the override power, calling it unnecessary and unhelpful.
Surprisingly, no such overrides were declared either in Victoria or Queensland – the two states that have human rights laws with this provision – during the COVID-19 public health emergency.
The Human Rights Act itself is an ordinary law, which means future governments could dilute, amend or even repeal it.
The Act can also be weakened if the parliament overrides its protections too many times.

Boris Johnson Q&A: why report into misleading parliament still matters, even after he resigned as an MP

Retrieved on:

Vendredi, juin 16, 2023

House of Commons of the United Kingdom, Commons, Recall of MPs Act 2015, Privilege, Light, An Act to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act and the Criminal Code, Government, Committee, Human Rights Act, Commons Select Committee on Standards, Labour, Downing Street, MP, Contempt, House, Property management, Pharmaceutical industry

The committee concluded that were he still an MP, he should be suspended for 90 days.

Key Points:

The committee concluded that were he still an MP, he should be suspended for 90 days.
But since Johnson resigned upon seeing a draft of the report, he will not serve the suspension.

What is the privileges committee?

What was Johnson accused of and why does it matter now he is no longer prime minister?

The principle accusation against Johnson is that he misled the House of Commons in relation to gatherings held in Downing Street while pandemic lockdowns were in place.
Over the course of the partygate scandal, Johnson made numerous statements to the House of Commons about what he did or didn’t know and what he did and didn’t do.
Importantly, from the outset of its investigations the committee adopted an expansive definition which did not require direct proof of Johnson having lied.

Why is misleading parliament such a serious matter?

Misleading the house is treated exceptionally seriously because of the centrality of ministerial accountability to parliament within the uncodified British constitution.
Privilege is the mechanism which shields debate in parliament from the restrictions on free speech that apply to ordinary citizens so that MPs can speak freely.
It also guarantees parliament the right to determine its own processes and procedures free from interference from the judicial and executive branches of government.

Would the report have forced Johnson out of the House of Commons?

Is a 90-day suspension longer than average?

The 90-day suspension Johnson was to serve is much longer than the most often commonly imposed sanction over the years, which has been a five-day suspension – not long enough to trigger a recall.
However it is still lower than the six-month suspension handed to Labour MP Keith Vaz in 2019 after he admitted to buying drugs from sex workers.

Prisoners’ voting rights: developments since May 2015

Retrieved on:

Jeudi, avril 2, 2020

Right of prisoners to vote, Law, Human Rights Act, European Court of Human Rights, Disfranchisement, John Hirst, Human rights, Suffrage, Public law, Voting Eligibility (Prisoners) Bill, The AIRE Centre

This House of Commons Briefing Paper analyses the debate over the voting rights of prisoners since May 2015, it also includes a concise summary of the main developments before May 2015. Download the full reportOverviewIn December 2017 the UK Government came up with proposals that the Council of Europe said were sufficient to signify compliance with the 2005 ruling.

Key Points:

This House of Commons Briefing Paper analyses the debate over the voting rights of prisoners since May 2015, it also includes a concise summary of the main developments before May 2015.

Download the full report

Overview

In December 2017 the UK Government came up with proposals that the Council of Europe said were sufficient to signify compliance with the 2005 ruling.
The responsibility for local and devolved elections in Scotland and Wales, including the franchise for those electionsis nowdevolved.
This briefing gives a summary of events before May 2015 and examines the debate since May 2015.
For more detail of events before 2015, see Commons Librarys standard note Prisoners voting rights (2005 to May 2015).

The ban

The current provisions are set out in Section 3 of the Representation of the People Act 1983.
This ban does not apply to prisoners on remand.
The disenfranchisement of prisoners in Great Britain dates back to the Forfeiture Act 1870 and was been linked to the notion of civic death.

The challenge

In 2001 the ban was challenged by three convicted prisoners.
The domestic courts rejected the challenge and one of the prisoners, John Hirst, then took his case to the ECtHR.
The central element to the ECtHR ruling was that the UKs blanket ban on prisoner voting was indiscriminate and disproportionate.

The debate

The Hirst (No 2) judgment set off a political debate.
This debate has largely focused on the constitutional issues raised by the judgment, in particular: the UKs relationship with the ECtHR; reform of the Human Rights Act 1998; and the importance of parliamentary sovereignty.
Hirst (No 2) is regarded by some as an example of the ECtHR overstepping its proper role and encroaching upon Parliaments legislative authority.

The responses

In the 2005 Parliament, the Labour Government issued two consultations, one in 2006 and one in 2009.
It did not bring forward final proposals before the 2010 General Election.
In 2013, a Joint Committee scrutinising the Bill recommended that all prisoners serving sentences of 12 months or less should be entitled to vote in all UK parliamentary, local and European elections.
The Government did not formally respond and these proposals were not taken forward.
Neither a response to the Committee nor a consultation on the Human Rights Act has yet been published.

The solution

These proposals are more limited in scope than those included in previous proposals.
The main change proposed is to allow prisoners on Temporary Licence to vote.
It agreed to report back to the Council of Europes Committee of Ministers by September 2018.
The Council of Europe confirmed that the case was closed at its meeting of September 2018.

Scotland and Wales

Send your views: Fatal Accidents Act 1976 (Remedial) Order 2019

Retrieved on:

Vendredi, mai 17, 2019

Judicial remedies, Law, Damages, Human rights in the United Kingdom, Human Rights Act, Legal remedy, Government

Joint Committee on Human Rights would like your views on the proposal to extend bereavement damages to co-habiting couples

Key Points:

If Ms Smith had been married or in a civil partnership with her deceased partner, she would have been entitled to bereavement damages.
Bereavement damages consist of a fixed lump sum payment (12,980) intended to compensate for grief where death is caused by the wrongful act or omission of another person.
On 8 May 2019, the Government laid a proposed draft Remedial Order before Parliament to remedy the discrimination.
The Joint Committee on Human Rights is required to report to Parliament on any Remedial Order made under the Human Rights Act.

Send your views: Fatal Accidents Act 1976 (Remedial) Order 2019

Retrieved on:

Vendredi, mai 17, 2019

Judicial remedies, Law, Damages, Human rights in the United Kingdom, Human Rights Act, Legal remedy, Government

Joint Committee on Human Rights would like your views on the proposal to extend bereavement damages to co-habiting couples

Key Points:

If Ms Smith had been married or in a civil partnership with her deceased partner, she would have been entitled to bereavement damages.
Bereavement damages consist of a fixed lump sum payment (12,980) intended to compensate for grief where death is caused by the wrongful act or omission of another person.
On 8 May 2019, the Government laid a proposed draft Remedial Order before Parliament to remedy the discrimination.
The Joint Committee on Human Rights is required to report to Parliament on any Remedial Order made under the Human Rights Act.

Send your views: Fatal Accidents Act 1976 (Remedial) Order 2019

Retrieved on:

Vendredi, mai 17, 2019

Judicial remedies, Law, Damages, Human rights in the United Kingdom, Human Rights Act, Legal remedy, Government

Joint Committee on Human Rights would like your views on the proposal to extend bereavement damages to co-habiting couples

Key Points:

If Ms Smith had been married or in a civil partnership with her deceased partner, she would have been entitled to bereavement damages.
Bereavement damages consist of a fixed lump sum payment (12,980) intended to compensate for grief where death is caused by the wrongful act or omission of another person.
On 8 May 2019, the Government laid a proposed draft Remedial Order before Parliament to remedy the discrimination.
The Joint Committee on Human Rights is required to report to Parliament on any Remedial Order made under the Human Rights Act.

Equality and Human Rights experts give evidence to Committee

Retrieved on:

Vendredi, mars 22, 2019

Articles, Human rights, Cultural globalization, International human rights law, Human Rights Act

EU Justice Sub-Committee takes evidence on Tuesday 26 March at 10.45am

Key Points:

Tuesday 26 Marchin Committee Room 3, Palace of Westminster
Dr Katie Boyle,Associate Professor in International Human Rights Law at the University of Stirling.
She is a Member of the Scottish First Ministers Advisory Group on Human Rights Leadership and is speaking on behalf of that Group.
Are you concerned that there is a threat to human rights and the rule of law given the Government's confirmation to us that it may still consider reforming the human rights framework by repealing or replacing the Human Rights Act 1998, once the process of EU exit has been completed?
The First Minister's Advisory Group on Human Rights Leadership in Scotland has proposed an Act of the Scottish Parliament to provide human rights leadership.