State told human rights a matter of decency

Peter Munro

THE Baillieu Government has been warned against ''rolling back'' the human rights charter by Britain's former attorney-general, who said such moves could threaten the protection of individuals and minorities.

Lord Peter Goldsmith, QC, who oversaw the implementation of the UK Human Rights Act under the former Labour government, dismissed criticism by Victorian Attorney-General Robert Clark that the charter was ''wide open to abuse'' by criminals and needed to change. ''This society is strong enough to be able to continue to have proper protection for fundamental rights and a proper guarantee of those rights and liberties, and you shouldn't look to remove them,'' he said.

''Don't roll back on what you have done.''

Mr Clark last month announced a parliamentary inquiry into Victoria's charter of human rights and responsibilities, which he has described as ineffective, ''riddled with flaws'' and a waste of taxpayer funds.

But Britain's top law officer from 2001 to 2007 told The Sunday Age governments should instead create a ''culture of awareness and respect'' for human rights. ''My concern is we shouldn't turn back the clock to an era where individual rights and responsibilities are not treated with the same degree of importance and respect that they are at the moment,'' he said.

New figures reveal the 2006 Victorian charter, which came into full force in 2008, has been substantially considered in about 100 cases - 20 per cent of which related to access to justice, 15 per cent to housing and homelessness, and 10 per cent to mental health issues.

Less than 3 per cent concerned criminal law, remand and bail issues, according to the analysis by the Human Rights Law Centre.

Lord Goldsmith, who was in Melbourne last week to speak at a law centre event, said rights confirmed by the UK law included the right of elderly couples in homes to stay together and the right to a good education.

''These are things which matter to decent people,'' he said. ''This is not primarily a protection for the bad people in society.''

But Institute of Public Affairs research fellow Ted Lapkin said the Victorian charter was undemocratic because it transferred power from governments to an ''unanswerable judiciary''.

The charter gives the Supreme Court jurisdiction to declare a statutory provision is inconsistent with a human right but the court does not have the power to strike down legislation and parliament has the final say.

Mr Clark refused to say if he would repeal the charter before the joint parliamentary inquiry, which was prescribed in the legislation and is due to report by October.


(2011-5-29/smh.com.au)