BILL OF RIGHTS FOR AUSTRALIA?

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 02 CANBERRA 001307 SENSITIVE SIPDIS E.O. 12958: N/A TAGS: PGOV PHUM AS SUBJECT: BILL OF RIGHTS FOR AUSTRALIA? ¶1. (U) SUMMARY: On the 60th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the Government announced it would establish a consultation process on how best to protect and promote human rights in Australia. A committee will canvass public opinion on whether human rights need any additional protection in Australia, and if so, what form of protection. The government has made clear that any proposal must preserve the sovereignty of Parliament - which would rule out a constitutional bill of rights that could supersede federal law. The review will provide fuel in the "culture wars" between the Right and the Left in Australia, with the Right warning a Charter of Rights will put more power in the hands of activist, unelected judges. END SUMMARY. "MEDDLING PRIEST" CHAIRS INQUIRY ¶2. (U) On December 9, the Attorney General announced that a four-member committee will seek the community's views on human rights in Australia. A nationwide consultation process will begin almost immediately, with the panel taking submissions and holding town hall meetings in 30-35 cities and towns throughout Australia. It is due to report on July 31, 2009. The committee will be chaired by high-profile Jesuit priest and law professor, Father Frank Brennan, who former Australian Labor Party (ALP) Prime Minister Paul Keating once called a "meddling priest." Brennan has attacked constitutional bills of rights, which he claims gives judges too much power over moral issues such as abortion and gay rights. He is said to be more neutral on a statutory bill of rights, which would be enacted by the Parliament. Other members of the committee are former TV presenter Mary Kostakidis, indigenous lawyer Tammy Williams and former Australian Federal Police Commissioner Mick Palmer. The Attorney General said "any proposal must preserve the sovereignty of parliament." The terms of reference for the inquiry are: - Which human rights (including corresponding responsibilities) should be protected and promoted? - Are these human rights currently sufficiently protected and promoted? - How could Australia better protect and promote human rights? CHARTER OF RIGHTS DOMINATES DISCUSSION ¶3. (U) The Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission welcomed the inquiry, pointing out that Australia is the only liberal democracy in the world without a charter or bill of rights. The concept under consideration would likely be a charter of rights, enacted by Parliament. A judge could rule if a subsequent law complied with the charter but only Parliament would have the authority to void or change the law. Shadow Attorney General George Brandis said the need for a charter of rights had not been demonstrated, claiming it is "an idea that has filtered down from law school common rooms and activist judges." Independent Senator Nick Xenophon and Family First Senator Steve Fielding, whose support would be needed to pass a bill if the Coalition opposed it, are both unconvinced of the need for a charter of rights. Even former New South Wales Labor premier Bob Carr said it risked a "shift in power from elected, parliaments to unelected judges. " In Victoria and the ACT, there are charters of rights which require the state and territory government to take into account human rights principals when creating laws. In Victoria, the courts can rule on whether laws are consistent with the charter, however parliament is not bound to follow a court's ruling. ¶4. (SBU) COMMENT: The Rudd Government appears determined to Q4. (SBU) COMMENT: The Rudd Government appears determined to take a stronger approach to human rights than the Howard Government. It has removed discrimination against same-sex couples in retirement plans and welfare payments. It has also moved towards signing various international human rights conventions and protocols, apologized to indigenous Australians, and is committed to reforming freedom of information laws. However, this is a sensitive political issue for a Labor government. In 1988, a referendum seeking to include rights in the Constitution was rejected. The Keating ALP Government was often accused of paying too much attention to the agendas of minority groups and left-wing "elites." The "working families" that helped Rudd get elected do not believe Australia has a human rights problem and are suspicious of the judiciary, particularly in relation to "soft sentencing" for criminals. With economic uncertainty rising, the working families are not likely to be sympathetic to a government that spends much time on human rights charters for Australia. CANBERRA 00001307 002 OF 002 MCCALLUM